Premises Liability: Summary judgment granted for housing authority where plaintiff had not provided the requisite notice of her intent to file suit

Before the court is the defendant, Bridgeport Housing Authority and Park City Communities’, motion for summary judgment which asserts that the plaintiff failed to comply with the notice requirements set forth in Connecticut General Statutes § 8-67. The plaintiff alleges in her complaint that she was lawfully on the defendant’s premises when she was suddenly caused to slip and fall due to the presence of ice and snow on the parking lot surface.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendant controlled, possessed, managed, and/or maintained the property including the parking areas and as a result of the defendant’s negligence, she was caused to suffer personal injuries. In the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, they contend that General Statutes § 8-67 required the plaintiff to file notice with the chairman or secretary of the Bridgeport Housing Authority of its intention to bring an action for damages within six months after she allegedly slipped and fell.

In the present case, the plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter on March 1, 2021, and two letters dated July 9, 2021, addressed directly to “Trumbull Gardens,” the name of the housing authority complex where plaintiff allegedly fell. The plaintiff’s attorney sent an additional letter on December 10, 2021, addressed only to “Park City Communities.” The court finds undisputed that the plaintiff’s letters were neither addressed to the chairperson, the secretary or the Bridgeport Housing Authority, in general. Instead, they were addressed to “Trumbull Gardens” or “Park City Communities C/O Trumbull Gardens.”

The salutations in each letter were “Dear Sir/Madam.” The court finds that the record is also devoid of any evidence that the chairman or secretary actually received the notices. In prior precedent, the Appellate Court has concluded that notice provided to housing authority employees or an insurance carrier, but not the chairman or secretary themselves, does not satisfy the notice requirement of § 8-67. Therefore, plaintiff here must offer evidence to show that the letters were received by either the chairman or the secretary within the requisite time frame. Based on the facts of the present case and the Appellate Courts previous holdings, the court concludes that the plaintiff did not provide the requisite notice as a matter of law. Thus, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Anchundia v. Park City Communities, No. FBT-CV-22-6114153-S, 2023 WL 3993213 (Conn. Super. Ct. June 6, 2023).