************************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the
beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be
published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it
is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event
of discrepancies between the advance release version of
an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut
Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports
or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is
to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an
opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and
subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut
Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced
or distributed without the express written permission of
the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial
Branch, State of Connecticut.
************************************************
Sarjac Partners, LLC v. Giuliano
SARJAC PARTNERS, LLC v.
SHAUNA GIULIANO
(AC 48561)
Cradle, C. J., and Elgo and Westbrook, Js.
Syllabus
The plaintiff landlord appealed from the trial court’s judgment for the defendant tenant in its summary process action, in which the defendant filed a counterclaim alleging, inter alia, constructive eviction. The plaintiff claimed that the court erred in finding that it breached the lease agreement and constructively evicted the defendant. Held:
The trial court’s findings were not clearly erroneous, as this court could not conclude that the findings were not supported by any evidence, nor was this court left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake had been made.
Argued February 11—officially released June 30, 2026
Procedural History
Summary process action, brought to the Superior
Court in the judicial district of Hartford, where the
defendant filed a counterclaim; thereafter, the case was
tried to the court, Lopez, J.; judgment for the defendant on the complaint and in part on the counterclaim, from
which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Christopher R. Boy, with whom was Gary J. Green,
for the appellant (plaintiff).
Benjamin Ancona, Jr., for the appellee (defendant).
Opinion
PER CURIAM. In this summary process action,
the plaintiff, Sarjac Partners, LLC, appeals from the
judgment of the trial court, rendered in favor of the
defendant, Shauna Giuliano, on the plaintiff’s claim of
breach of contract and on the counts of the defendant’s
counterclaim alleging breach of contract and constructive eviction.1 On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the
court erred in finding that it breached the subject lease 1
The court found in favor of the plaintiff on the counts of the defendant’s counterclaim alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Sarjac Partners, LLC v. Giuliano
agreement and constructively evicted the defendant.2
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts, as set forth by the trial court,
and procedural history are relevant to our consideration
of this appeal. The plaintiff managed a multiunit commercial property located at 36 LaSalle Road in West
Hartford. In July 2022, the plaintiff entered into a written four year lease with the defendant, who owned and
operated a hair salon, for one of the units that was located on the second floor.3 The term of the lease was from
September 1, 2021, until August 31, 2025. The lease
agreement provided in relevant part that the plaintiff
would keep the premises reasonably maintained so long
as the defendant was not in default on her rent obligations. The defendant did not pay rent in August 2023 and
vacated the premises at some point during that month.
In February 2024, the plaintiff commenced this action
alleging that the defendant breached the lease agreement in that she had vacated the premises prior to its
expiration. The plaintiff sought damages for, inter alia, unpaid rent.
The defendant thereafter filed an answer denying the
allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint. The defendant
also filed a four count counterclaim alleging constructive eviction, breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violation of
the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General
Statutes § 42-110a et seq. The crux of the defendant’s
Practices Act, General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. The court’s judgment on these two counts has not been challenged on appeal.
2
The plaintiff also claims that the court erred in awarding damages to the defendant in that “the record does not support a finding of a breach of the lease or of constructive eviction.” The plaintiff does not assert a claim of error as to the award of damages itself but only insofar as the court erred in finding that it breached the lease and constructively evicted the defendant. Because we reject the plaintiff’s challenge to the court’s findings that it breached the lease agreement and constructively evicted the defendant, the plaintiff’s claim as to damages also fails.
3
At that time, there were three tenants at 36 Lasalle Road: “a hookah lounge, a restaurant, a bar, and soon to be restaurant.”
Sarjac Partners, LLC v. Giuliano
claims was that the plaintiff failed to reasonably maintain the premises.
Following a trial at which both parties testified, the
court issued a memorandum of decision wherein it
found in favor of the defendant on the plaintiff’s claim
of breach of contract and the counts of the defendant’s
counterclaim alleging breach of contract and constructive eviction.4 The court noted that there was no dispute that there were maintenance issues on the premises but
that the defendant’s testimony depicted those issues as
more extensive than the plaintiff’s testimony. The court
recounted: “For example, the defendant testified that,
on the weekends, the common areas frequently had holes
punched into the walls and were littered with beer bottles and cups and broken glass. She further testified that,
on weekends, the bathrooms were frequently exceedingly dirty and/or covered in vomit and/or clogged.
Similarly, the defendant testified to extensive issues
with the elevator. It was frequently out of service, and
even when it was working, it lacked finished flooring
for months, and a sticky substance covered the floor.
With regard to the other tenants leaving materials in
the common hallway, the defendant testified that these
materials actually obstructed the common hallway and
occasionally the elevator. The defendant testified that
ceiling tiles were stained and/or loose and/or falling into the common hallway due to an unrepaired roof causing
water issues. She further testified that ceiling tiles fell in her own space, onto one of her salon chairs, multiple
times due to the condition of the roof. Despite having to constantly complain about these conditions, the defendant testified that the plaintiff was generally responsive to complaints and that a work-around was usually possible. For example, she testified that, when the elevator was broken, a side door was propped open to allow access
to the stairs. Nevertheless, the defendant testified that, while she was able to operate the business, she had lost
both customers and employees due to the condition of the
premises. The defendant’s testimony is that she believed
4
See footnote 1 of this opinion.
Sarjac Partners, LLC v. Giuliano
[that] the plaintiff’s failure to correct these issues would continue to negatively impact her business. The court
finds this testimony both credible and unrefuted.
“According to the defendant, the maintenance issues
became critical when the plaintiff advised the defendant
that she could no longer prop the side door open to allow access to the stairs when the elevator was broken. The
defendant testified that the plaintiff advised it wanted, or had, to maintain the side door secured. When the
defendant asked the plaintiff how her clients were supposed to enter the premises, the plaintiff advised that
the defendant should post a sign asking any arriving
clients to call the defendant to let them in. The defendant testified that requiring clients to call to be let in would require [her] to stop cutting hair, answer the phone, leave an existing customer to go downstairs to let the arriving customer in, and return upstairs. The defendant testified that she could not run a hair cutting business that
way and that she advised the plaintiff of the same. The
court finds this testimony credible.
“The defendant admitted on cross-examination that
the plaintiff did not, itself, physically cause any of these issues and that she knew that the other tenants operated
a bar and/or restaurant at the time she entered into the
lease. The court finds the fact that the plaintiff did not, itself, litter or vandalize the premises does not excuse [its] failure to maintain the premises pursuant to the terms
of the lease [agreement]. Neither does the defendant’s
knowledge regarding the business operations of the other
tenants excuse the plaintiff’s failure to maintain the
premises under the lease. The court also finds that there was no breach by the defendant under the 2022 lease [and
that] the evidence establishes that all amounts due under the 2022 lease, except for the August 2023 rent and rent
due after the defendant vacated, were paid.”
On the basis of the foregoing, the court found that
the plaintiff breached the lease agreement by failing
to reasonably maintain the premises and, accordingly,
rendered judgment for the defendant on the plaintiff’s
Sarjac Partners, LLC v. Giuliano
breach of contract claim and the counts of the defendant’s counterclaim alleging breach of contract and constructive eviction.
In addressing the defendant’s claim of constructive
eviction, the court explained: “The testimony regarding
the general conditions of the common hallway and bathrooms establishes that there were serious maintenance
issues with the premises, but it does not, necessarily,
establish that the premises were untenantable. However,
when that evidence is coupled with the evidence concerning the ceiling tiles falling onto one of defendant’s own chairs multiple times, the prohibition against propping
open the side door when the elevator was broken and the
proposed work-around, and the defendant losing customers and employees, the court finds, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that the premises [was] untenantable in
light of the [defendant’s] intended use of the premises
and the interference with [the defendant’s] use [was]
caused by the condition of the premises.”
On the basis of the foregoing, the court found that
the plaintiff’s failure to maintain the premises interfered with the defendant’s ability to use the premises
and caused her to vacate them. The court further found
that the plaintiff had been notified of the maintenance
issues and had been given a reasonable time to correct
them prior to the defendant vacating the premises. This
appeal followed.
On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erroneously found that it breached the lease agreement and
constructively evicted the defendant from the premises.
Because both of the plaintiff’s claims present issues of
fact, we review them for clear error. See Villwell Builders I, LLC v. Pereira, 237 Conn. App. 45, 54, 349 A.3d
590 (2026) (determination of whether contract has been
breached is question of fact); Welsch v. Groat, 95 Conn.
App. 658, 662, 897 A.2d 710 (2006) (whether premises
is untenantable for purposes of constructive eviction is
question of fact). “It is well settled that a factual finding is not clearly erroneous unless it is not supported by
Sarjac Partners, LLC v. Giuliano
any evidence in the record or when there is evidence to
support it, but the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made
. . . . Simply put, we give great deference to the findings of the trial court because of its function to weigh and
interpret the evidence before it and to pass upon the
credibility of witnesses.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Commerce Park Associates, LLC v. Robbins, 193
Conn. App. 697, 719, 220 A.3d 86 (2019), cert. denied
sub nom. Robbins Eye Center, P.C. v. Commerce Park
Associates, LLC, 334 Conn. 912, 221 A.3d 447 (2020),
and cert. denied sub nom. Robbins Eye Center, P.C. v.
Commerce Park Associates, LLC, 334 Conn. 912, 221
A.3d 448 (2020).
We have reviewed the record before the trial court and
cannot conclude that its findings are not supported by
any evidence; nor are we left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been made. We therefore
conclude that the court’s findings were not clearly erroneous and the plaintiff’s claims on appeal are unavailing.
The judgment is affirmed.