Waters Edge 938, LLC v. Mazzarella, AC43489

Waters Edge 938, LLC owns a four-unit building at 938 Farmington Ave; Christine Mazzarella has lived there since 2015 on a month-to-month tenancy.
The adjacent property, 944 Farmington Ave, is a two‑unit building owned by Ludlow 944, LLC; Daniel McClutchy is a principal/member of both LLCs.
The two buildings share a paved driveway and parking lot; there is no physical separation between the parcels.
Plaintiff served a notice to quit (June 27, 2019) and sued for nonpayment of rent and lapse of time after the tenant failed to vacate.
Tenant asserted a special defense under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47a‑23c (protecting disabled tenants in a building or complex of five or more units) arguing the two buildings constitute a single complex because McClutchy has ownership interests in both LLCs.
Trial court found the buildings were owned by separate LLCs, the tenant failed to prove McClutchy had beneficial ownership or a right to present use/enjoyment of both properties, and § 47a‑23c therefore did not apply; judgment for plaintiff on lapse of time was affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Waters Edge's Argument	Mazzarella's Argument	Held
Whether § 47a‑23c’s definition of “complex” can treat adjacent buildings owned by separate LLCs as a single complex	Statute requires buildings be “under the same ownership”; separate LLCs are not the same owner	McClutchy’s membership in both LLCs shows common ownership/beneficial ownership, so buildings form a 6‑unit complex	Court: “under the same ownership” requires same owner/entity; separate LLCs are not enough absent evidence treating them as one owner
Whether McClutchy had "beneficial ownership" or a right to present use/enjoyment of both properties	No: plaintiff LLCs hold legal title; membership alone insufficient without evidence of control, profit, or exclusive use rights	Yes: McClutchy’s role as principal/sole member and use of shared parking shows beneficial use/control	Court: Plaintiff did not present evidence of control, profit, or a right to present use/enjoyment; parking use alone is insufficient — tenant failed to prove beneficial ownership

Gould v. Freedom of Information Commission, 314 Conn. 802 (2014) (statutory interpretation principles; plenary review of statute application)
Hlinka v. Michaels, 204 Conn. App. 537 (2021) (reciting § 47a‑1(e) definition of “owner”)
Success, Inc. v. Curcio, 160 Conn. App. 153 (2015) (beneficial owner as one who owns and controls entity holding legal title)
Loew v. Falsey, 144 Conn. 67 (1956) (individual control of corporation can make individual a beneficial owner despite corporate legal title)
Scott v. Heinonen, 118 Conn. App. 577 (2009) (explaining "beneficial use" and "beneficial interest" concepts)