City of Bridgeport v. Grace Bldg., LLC, 181 Conn. App. 280

City of Bridgeport sued Grace Building, LLC in summary process alleging nonpayment under a lease; plaintiff later amended to attach a written 98‑year lease signed in 2010.
Grace answered, asserted that payments were satisfied by agreed repairs/cleanup and raised special defenses tied to ground contamination remediation and equitable defenses.
Multiple continuances were granted (many with plaintiff’s consent); plaintiff agreed to a 60‑day discovery window in May 2015. Trial was set for July 17, 2015.
Defense counsel moved to withdraw on June 19, 2015; the court granted withdrawal and warned the corporate defendant it needed counsel by July 17 or default could enter.
On July 17 the corporate president appeared without counsel; an attorney accompanied him to the courthouse but did not file an appearance. The court entered default for failure to appear. New counsel filed shortly thereafter and moved to open the default, which the trial court denied.
On appeal the Appellate Court addressed (1) whether the appeal was moot given eviction and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to open the default judgment. The court reversed and remanded, concluding the motion to open should have been granted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of appeal after eviction	Appeal is moot because defendant no longer possesses premises	Not moot: judgment has collateral consequences (e.g., impairment of writ of restoration); 98‑year lease still in force	Not moot: writ of restoration remains available under the 98‑year lease, so appeal is justiciable
Standard to open default judgment under §52‑212 / Practice Book §17‑43	Trial court applied discretion and found defendant dilatory; denial appropriate	Defendant had good defenses pleaded and reasonable cause for not having counsel (withdrew counsel, sought replacements, counsel appeared at courthouse but would not enter)	Court abused discretion: defendant satisfied both prongs (good defense and reasonable cause) and motion to open should have been granted
Trial court’s factual findings of dilatory conduct and lack of reasonable cause	Plaintiff emphasized lengthy procedural history and final date warning by judge	Defendant pointed to plaintiff’s own delays (defective initial complaint, slow amendment), plaintiff’s consent to continuances, active efforts to secure counsel, and unrebutted affidavit recounting events	Appellate Court found trial court’s findings clearly erroneous given record and policy favoring trial on merits

Housing Authority v. Lamothe, 225 Conn. 757 (Conn. 1993) (recognizes collateral consequences can prevent mootness in summary process appeals)
Yankee Sailing Co. v. Yankee Harbor Marina, Inc., 5 Conn. App. 153 (Conn. App. 1985) (writ of restoration may issue after reversal but only if lease term has not expired)
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Mendez, 320 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2015) (mootness test: whether successful appeal would afford practical relief)
Mazziotti v. Allstate Ins. Co., 240 Conn. 799 (Conn. 1997) (trial court discretion to modify or vacate judgments)
Multilingual Consultant Associates, LLC v. Ngoh, 163 Conn. App. 725 (Conn. App. 2016) (discusses policy preference for trial on merits when reviewing motions to open default judgments)