Preview
No. FST-CV15-5014471-S
JEREMY COLLINS, f SUPERIOR COURT
MOLLY MCCULLOUGH :
Plaintiffs i JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD
vs. : AT STAMFORD
MARGARET MONTANARO
Defendant : March 9, 2015
REVISED COMPLAINT
FIRST COUNT
1 This is an action brought under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act
(hereinafter, "CUTPA"), Chapter 735a Section 42-110g of the Connecticut General Statutes in order
to obtain relief against Defendant for alleged violations of General Statutes Section 42-110b(a),
prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts and practices, for restitution against Defendant for alleged
violations of law, for civil penalties, damages, and for such other relief as the court deems necessary
and proper.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2: This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted in this
complaint pursuant to Connect General Statutes Section 51-164s.
3: This Court has personal jurisdiction over the person of the Defendant in this
case owing to the fact Defendant resides in and is domiciled in this state.
4, Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes
Section 51-345(3) because Plaintiffs reside in this Judicial District.
THE PARTIES
5. Plaintiffs are individuals residing in Stamford Connecticut. At all times
relevant to this complaint Plaintiffs were engaged in trade or commerce with Defendant in the State
of Connecticut and did lease an apartment located at 32-34 Brittin Avenue, Bridgeport, Connecticut
from the Defendant for a period beginning on June 1, 2013 and ending on December 13, 2014.
6. Defendant Margaret Montanaro ("Montanaro") is an individual residing at 70
Hattertown Road, Newtown, Connecticut. At all times relevant to this complaint Montanaro was
engaged in the trade or commerce of leasing rental property to Connecticut consumers and did lease
an apartment to Plaintiffs for a period beginning on June 1, 2013 and ending on December 13, 2014.
Individually or jointly with others, Montanaro directed, controlled and participated in the acts and
practices set forth herein.DEFENDANT'S COURSE OF CONDUCT
Ms The acts and practices alleged herein occurred in trade or commerce in the
State of Connecticut.
8. On or about May 27, 2013 Montanaro placed an online advertisement on
craigslist.org soliciting tenants for an apartmant located on the 2™ floor of a2 family home she
owned at the address of 32-34 Brittin Ave., Bridgeport, Connecticut ("apartment").
9. Plaintiffs contacted Montanaro via email and Plaintiff Molly McCullough
("McCullough") viewed the apartment. McCullough negotiated the terms of a residential lease with
Montanaro for a period of | year to commence on June 1, 2013 ("lease"). Plaintiffs agreed to pay
Montanaro a monthly rent of $1400.00 and to provide Montanaro with a security deposit in the
amount of $2800.00. A check in the amount of $4200.00 was paid to Montanaro at lease signing.
10. Atall times relevant to this complaint Montanaro represented and implied to
Plaintiffs that their residency would be governed by the terms agreed to in the lease executed on
June 1, 2013 and that their dwelling unit and the structure it was located in complied with all
relevant statutes, codes and regulations of the State of Connecticut and the town of Bridgeport,
Connecticut.
11. On April 15, 2014 McCullough sent Montanaro a letter, via Certifed Mail and
email, requesting to extend the current lease for a period of | year in accordance with the relevant
provision of the lease signed on June 1, 2013.
12. Montanaro refused to accept the Certified Letter but replied to Plaintiffs via
email on April 28, 2014. Montanaro stated in that email that it was her "policy" to not extend the
leases of any of her tenants at 32-34 Brittin Ave. and such "policy" had been in force since 1986,
13. Upon information and belief Montanaro rented the 3" floor attic apartment
(“attic") to a new tenant, Warren Richard Dix Jr. ("Dix"), on or about July 15, 2014.
14. Plaintiffs complained to Montanaro regarding the new attic occupant, of the
nuisance noise and lack of privacy owing to insufficient soundproofing and Dix's utilization of the
attic located directly above their apartment on the 2" floor as both a dwelling unit and a workshop.
Plaintiffs researched the matter and discovered that the attic was an unlawful apartment and filed a
complaint with the municipial authorities on September 16, 2014.
1S. On October 17, 2014 the Bridgeport Fire Inspector conducted an inspection of
32-34 Brittin Avenue.
16. On October 21, 2014 Plaintiffs were served by Montanaro with a Notice to
Quit ordering them to vacate their apartment by December 1, 2014. .
17. Plaintiff Jeremy Collins ("Collins") filed a Housing Code Complaint on
October 27, 2014 citing the violation of Bridgeport Housing Code 15.12.250 by Montanaro. The
code section cited bars the collection, recieving, or recovery of rent or use and occupancy payments
for dwelling units in structures containing three or more units that are not also owner-occupied if a
Certificate of Apartment Occupancy application has not been made or approved.18. Montanaro and Collins signed a Stipulated Agreement in the presence of a
housing mediator on November 21, 2014 in which they agreed. in part, that Plaintiffs would vacate
the apartment no later than January 2, 2015 and that Montanaro would require neither rent nor use
and occupancy payment for a period starting on November 21, 2014 and ending on January 2, 2015.
19. Plaintiffs vacated the apartment on December 13, 2014 and mailed via
Certified Mail, return receipt requested, and email, a letter with their forwarding address and the
house keys. Montanaro accepted and signed for the Certified Mail on December 19, 2014.
20. On January 13, 2015 Plaintiffs received a Fed Ex envelope with a letter
claiming certain damages that Plaintiffs did not cause and/or are not responsible for. The letter listed
damages that were present at the time Plaint gned the lease on June 1, 2013, damages that were
the proximate cause of Montanaro's utilization of unskilled and unlicensed contractors and repairs
that were either never attempted or never completed. Attachments included an unsigned, undated,
unnumbered invoice from a business with no listed physical address. no Connecticut Professional
License(s) and no DOS Registration and written in a handwriting style uncannily similar to that of
Montanaro's amounting to almost exactly $1400.00, which is also coincidentally the amount alleged
by Montanaro to be the Plaintiffs’ entire security deposit. The letter did not itemize or declare any
rent or use and occupancy payments deducted by Montanaro from Plaintiffs’ security deposit of
$2800.00 nor did the amount of claimed damages add up to $2800.00.
21. Montanaro has made or caused to be made, directly or indirectly, explicitly or
by implication, representations and omissions which are materially false and likely to mislead,
including but not limited to the following:
a) That the apartment rented by Plaintiffs complied with all relevant statutes,
codes and regulations of the State of Connecticut and town of Bridgeport.
b) That the lease executed between Plaintiffs and Montanaro was made in
good faith with respect to all of its provisions.
c) That Plaintiffs would receive their security deposit back in the time
specified by statute with all deductions itemized and with only such
deductions permitted by the relevant statutes, codes and regulations.
22. Contrary to Montanaro's representations:
a) Montanaro did not comply with all relevant statutes, codes and regulations
of the State of Connecticut and town of Bridgeport and has unlawfully
collected rent both from the Plaintiffs and other tenants of 32-34 Brittin
Avenue over a period of several years.
b) Montanaro did not negotiate Plaintiffs' lease in good faith and never
intended to allow Plaintiffs to exercise the lease extension option she
agreed to include in the lease provisions.
c) Montanaro did not return Plaintiffs’ security deposit in the manner
prescribed by statute: She did not credit or return the interest owed to
Plaintiffs on the security deposit and did not provide a written statement
itemizing all damages deducted but instead sent an incomplete account of
deductions along with a list of fabricated damages.23. Montanaro's course of conduct as alleged herein has been undertaken in the
conduct of trade or commerce in Connecticut as defined in General Statutes Section 42-110a(4).
24. Based on the above, Montanaro's omissions and practices, as alleged herein
have been and are material, false and likely to mislead consumers and, therefore, constitute
deceptive acts or practices in violation of General Statutes Section 42-110b(a).
SECOND COUNT
1-24. Paragraphs | through 24 of the FIRST COUNT are incorporated as
paragraphs | through 24 of the SECOND COUNT as if fully set forth herein.
25. In violation of General Statutes Section 47a-5 Montanaro did allow for the
occupation of the apartment by Plaintiffs without ever having applied for a Certificate of Apartment
Occupancy as required by Bridgeport Housing Code 15.12.250 and did collect rent unlawfully
from Plaintiffs and other tenants of 32-34 Brittin Avenue.
26. Based on the above, Montanaro's omissions and practices, as alleged herein
have been and are unfair as they resulted in an ascertainable loss to Plaintiffs and are unethical,
oppressive, unscrupulous and immoral and therefore constitute a violation of General Statutes
Section 42-110b(a).
27. Montanaro's act and practices, as described herein, are unfair or deceptive in
violation of General Statutes Section 42-110b.
THIRD COUNT
1-27. Paragraphs | through 27 of the SECOND COUNT are incorporated as
paragraphs | through 27 of the THIRD COUNT as if fully set forth herein.
28. In violation of General Statutes 47a-21(d) Montanaro did not fully return or
fully account for deductions from Plaintiffs’ security deposit as prescribed by statute. Montanaro did
not properly itemize deductions, made unlawful deductions and fabricated damages to evade the
statutory requirements of 47a-21(d).
29. Based on the above, Montanaro's omissions and practices, as alleged herein
have been and are unfair as they resulted in an ascertainable loss to Plaintiffs and are unethical,
oppressive, unscrupulous and immoral and therefore constitute a violation of General Statutes
Section 42-110b(a).
30. Montanaro's act and practices, as described herein, are unfair or deceptive in
violation of General Statutes Section 42-110b.
FOURTH COUNT
1-30. Paragraphs | through 30 of the THIRD COUNT are incorporated as
paragraphs | through 30 of the FOURTH COUNT as if fully set forth herein.
31. Montanaro negotiated Plaintiffs’ lease in bad faith and thereby breached the
implied covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.32. Based on the above, Montanaro's omissions and practices, as alleged herein
have been and are unfair as they resulted in an ascertainable loss to Plaintiffs and are unethical,
oppressive, unscrupulous and immoral and therefore constitute a violation of General Statutes
Section 42-110b(a).
33. Montanaro's act and practices, as described herein, are unfair or deceptive in
violation of General Statutes Section 42-110b.
FIFTH COUNT
1-33. Paragraphs 1 through 30 of the FOURTH COUNT are incorporated as
paragraphs | through 30 of the FIFTH COUNT as if fully set forth herein.
34. Montanaro refused to extend Plaintiffs' Lease and freely admitted that it was
her "policy" not to allow the Plaintiffs to extend their lease despite including a clause to that effect
and that such "policy" had been in place many years prior to Plaintiffs entering into a lease with
Montanaro and thereby committed a Material Breach of Contract.
35. Based on the above, Montanaro's omissions and practices, as alleged herein
have been and are unfair as they resulted in an ascertainable loss to Plaintiffs and are unethical,
oppressive, unscrupulous and immoral and therefore constitute a violation of General Statutes
Section 42-110b(a).
36. | Montanaro's act and practices, as described herein, are unfair or deceptive in
violation of General Statutes Section 42-110b.
SIXTH COUNT
1-36. Paragraphs | through 36 of the FIFTH COUNT are incorporated as
paragraphs 1 through 30 of the SIXTH COUNT as if fully set forth herein.
37. In violation of General Statutes Section 53a-119 Montanaro, having been
sued in Housing Court for violation of Bridgeport Housing Code 15.12.250 by Plaintiffs, and
having signed a Stipulated Agreement in which she agreed to not charge Plaintiffs rent or use and
occupancy payments in order to end that suit, knew or should have known that she could not
lawfully collect rent or use and occupancy payments from Plaintiffs and yet did withhold rent or use
and occupancy from Plaintiffs’ security deposit.
38. Based on the above, Montanaro's omissions and practices, as alleged herein
have been and are unfair as they resulted in an ascertainable loss to Plaintiffs and are unethical,
oppressive, unscrupulous and immoral and therefore constitute a violation of General Statutes
Section 42-110b(a).
39. Montanaro's act and practices, as described herein, are unfair or deceptive in
violation of General Statutes Section 42-110b.PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court for the following relief:
1 Enter judgement against Defendant and in favor of the Plaintiffs on each count of this
Complaint;
2. An order, pursuant to General Statutes Section 42-110(g), directing Defendant to pay
Compensatory Damages in the amount of $1500.00 to Plaintiffs for violations of General Statutes
Section 42-110b;
3. An order, pursuant to General Statutes Section 42-110(g), directing Defendant to pay civil
penalties of $4000.00 to each Plaintiff for violation of General Statutes Section 42-110b and
General Statutes 47a-5;
4. An order, pursuant to General Statutes 42-110(g), directing Defendant to pay damages of
$5600.00 to Plaintiffs for violation of General Statutes Section 42-110b and General Statutes 47a-
21(d);
5. An order, pursuant to General Statutes Section 42-110(g), directing Defendant to pay
Puntitive Damages to the Plaintiffs for violations of General Statutes Section 42-110b;
6. An order, pursuant to General Statutes Section 42-110(g), directing Defendant to pay Treble
Damages to the Plaintiffs according to General Statutes 52-564 for violations of General Statutes
53a-119 and General Statutes Section 42-110b and;
7. Costs of this suit, and;
8. Any such other relief in law or equity as the Court deems appropriate and just.
Dated at Stamford, Connecticut this day of March 9, 2015.
Plgintiff Pro Se
208 E. 51%. Street, #365
New York, New York
10022
Tel. (917) 805-6435No. FST-CV15-5014471-S
JEREMY COLLINS, : SUPERIOR COURT
MOLLY MCCULLOUGH F
Plaintiffs JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD
vs. 7 AT STAMFORD
MARGARET MONTANARO
Defendant . March 9, 2015
STATEMENT OF AMOUNT IN DEMAND
The amount, legal interest or property in demand is in excess of $15000.00, exclusive
of interests and costs.
208 E. 51". Street, #365
New York, New York
10022
Tel. (917) 805-6435
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a copy of the Revised Complaint and Statement of Amount in
Demand was mailed via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, and email, on 3/9/2015 to Counsel for the
Defendant:
Law Offices of James A. Cuddy
525 Bridgeport Avenue Suite 201
Shelton, CT, 06484
Mcklawjac@aol.com
f.
feremy Collins
Plaintiff Pro Se
208 E. 51%. Street, #365
New York, New York
10022
Tel. (917) 805-6435
BY:
Preview
No. FST-CV15-5014471-S JEREMY COLLINS, f SUPERIOR COURT MOLLY MCCULLOUGH : Plaintiffs i JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD vs. : AT STAMFORD MARGARET MONTANARO Defendant : March 9, 2015 REVISED COMPLAINT FIRST COUNT 1 This is an action brought under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (hereinafter, "CUTPA"), Chapter 735a Section 42-110g of the Connecticut General Statutes in order to obtain relief against Defendant for alleged violations of General Statutes Section 42-110b(a), prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts and practices, for restitution against Defendant for alleged violations of law, for civil penalties, damages, and for such other relief as the court deems necessary and proper. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2: This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted in this complaint pursuant to Connect General Statutes Section 51-164s. 3: This Court has personal jurisdiction over the person of the Defendant in this case owing to the fact Defendant resides in and is domiciled in this state. 4, Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes Section 51-345(3) because Plaintiffs reside in this Judicial District. THE PARTIES 5. Plaintiffs are individuals residing in Stamford Connecticut. At all times relevant to this complaint Plaintiffs were engaged in trade or commerce with Defendant in the State of Connecticut and did lease an apartment located at 32-34 Brittin Avenue, Bridgeport, Connecticut from the Defendant for a period beginning on June 1, 2013 and ending on December 13, 2014. 6. Defendant Margaret Montanaro ("Montanaro") is an individual residing at 70 Hattertown Road, Newtown, Connecticut. At all times relevant to this complaint Montanaro was engaged in the trade or commerce of leasing rental property to Connecticut consumers and did lease an apartment to Plaintiffs for a period beginning on June 1, 2013 and ending on December 13, 2014. Individually or jointly with others, Montanaro directed, controlled and participated in the acts and practices set forth herein.DEFENDANT'S COURSE OF CONDUCT Ms The acts and practices alleged herein occurred in trade or commerce in the State of Connecticut. 8. On or about May 27, 2013 Montanaro placed an online advertisement on craigslist.org soliciting tenants for an apartmant located on the 2™ floor of a2 family home she owned at the address of 32-34 Brittin Ave., Bridgeport, Connecticut ("apartment"). 9. Plaintiffs contacted Montanaro via email and Plaintiff Molly McCullough ("McCullough") viewed the apartment. McCullough negotiated the terms of a residential lease with Montanaro for a period of | year to commence on June 1, 2013 ("lease"). Plaintiffs agreed to pay Montanaro a monthly rent of $1400.00 and to provide Montanaro with a security deposit in the amount of $2800.00. A check in the amount of $4200.00 was paid to Montanaro at lease signing. 10. Atall times relevant to this complaint Montanaro represented and implied to Plaintiffs that their residency would be governed by the terms agreed to in the lease executed on June 1, 2013 and that their dwelling unit and the structure it was located in complied with all relevant statutes, codes and regulations of the State of Connecticut and the town of Bridgeport, Connecticut. 11. On April 15, 2014 McCullough sent Montanaro a letter, via Certifed Mail and email, requesting to extend the current lease for a period of | year in accordance with the relevant provision of the lease signed on June 1, 2013. 12. Montanaro refused to accept the Certified Letter but replied to Plaintiffs via email on April 28, 2014. Montanaro stated in that email that it was her "policy" to not extend the leases of any of her tenants at 32-34 Brittin Ave. and such "policy" had been in force since 1986, 13. Upon information and belief Montanaro rented the 3" floor attic apartment (“attic") to a new tenant, Warren Richard Dix Jr. ("Dix"), on or about July 15, 2014. 14. Plaintiffs complained to Montanaro regarding the new attic occupant, of the nuisance noise and lack of privacy owing to insufficient soundproofing and Dix's utilization of the attic located directly above their apartment on the 2" floor as both a dwelling unit and a workshop. Plaintiffs researched the matter and discovered that the attic was an unlawful apartment and filed a complaint with the municipial authorities on September 16, 2014. 1S. On October 17, 2014 the Bridgeport Fire Inspector conducted an inspection of 32-34 Brittin Avenue. 16. On October 21, 2014 Plaintiffs were served by Montanaro with a Notice to Quit ordering them to vacate their apartment by December 1, 2014. . 17. Plaintiff Jeremy Collins ("Collins") filed a Housing Code Complaint on October 27, 2014 citing the violation of Bridgeport Housing Code 15.12.250 by Montanaro. The code section cited bars the collection, recieving, or recovery of rent or use and occupancy payments for dwelling units in structures containing three or more units that are not also owner-occupied if a Certificate of Apartment Occupancy application has not been made or approved.18. Montanaro and Collins signed a Stipulated Agreement in the presence of a housing mediator on November 21, 2014 in which they agreed. in part, that Plaintiffs would vacate the apartment no later than January 2, 2015 and that Montanaro would require neither rent nor use and occupancy payment for a period starting on November 21, 2014 and ending on January 2, 2015. 19. Plaintiffs vacated the apartment on December 13, 2014 and mailed via Certified Mail, return receipt requested, and email, a letter with their forwarding address and the house keys. Montanaro accepted and signed for the Certified Mail on December 19, 2014. 20. On January 13, 2015 Plaintiffs received a Fed Ex envelope with a letter claiming certain damages that Plaintiffs did not cause and/or are not responsible for. The letter listed damages that were present at the time Plaint gned the lease on June 1, 2013, damages that were the proximate cause of Montanaro's utilization of unskilled and unlicensed contractors and repairs that were either never attempted or never completed. Attachments included an unsigned, undated, unnumbered invoice from a business with no listed physical address. no Connecticut Professional License(s) and no DOS Registration and written in a handwriting style uncannily similar to that of Montanaro's amounting to almost exactly $1400.00, which is also coincidentally the amount alleged by Montanaro to be the Plaintiffs’ entire security deposit. The letter did not itemize or declare any rent or use and occupancy payments deducted by Montanaro from Plaintiffs’ security deposit of $2800.00 nor did the amount of claimed damages add up to $2800.00. 21. Montanaro has made or caused to be made, directly or indirectly, explicitly or by implication, representations and omissions which are materially false and likely to mislead, including but not limited to the following: a) That the apartment rented by Plaintiffs complied with all relevant statutes, codes and regulations of the State of Connecticut and town of Bridgeport. b) That the lease executed between Plaintiffs and Montanaro was made in good faith with respect to all of its provisions. c) That Plaintiffs would receive their security deposit back in the time specified by statute with all deductions itemized and with only such deductions permitted by the relevant statutes, codes and regulations. 22. Contrary to Montanaro's representations: a) Montanaro did not comply with all relevant statutes, codes and regulations of the State of Connecticut and town of Bridgeport and has unlawfully collected rent both from the Plaintiffs and other tenants of 32-34 Brittin Avenue over a period of several years. b) Montanaro did not negotiate Plaintiffs' lease in good faith and never intended to allow Plaintiffs to exercise the lease extension option she agreed to include in the lease provisions. c) Montanaro did not return Plaintiffs’ security deposit in the manner prescribed by statute: She did not credit or return the interest owed to Plaintiffs on the security deposit and did not provide a written statement itemizing all damages deducted but instead sent an incomplete account of deductions along with a list of fabricated damages.23. Montanaro's course of conduct as alleged herein has been undertaken in the conduct of trade or commerce in Connecticut as defined in General Statutes Section 42-110a(4). 24. Based on the above, Montanaro's omissions and practices, as alleged herein have been and are material, false and likely to mislead consumers and, therefore, constitute deceptive acts or practices in violation of General Statutes Section 42-110b(a). SECOND COUNT 1-24. Paragraphs | through 24 of the FIRST COUNT are incorporated as paragraphs | through 24 of the SECOND COUNT as if fully set forth herein. 25. In violation of General Statutes Section 47a-5 Montanaro did allow for the occupation of the apartment by Plaintiffs without ever having applied for a Certificate of Apartment Occupancy as required by Bridgeport Housing Code 15.12.250 and did collect rent unlawfully from Plaintiffs and other tenants of 32-34 Brittin Avenue. 26. Based on the above, Montanaro's omissions and practices, as alleged herein have been and are unfair as they resulted in an ascertainable loss to Plaintiffs and are unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and immoral and therefore constitute a violation of General Statutes Section 42-110b(a). 27. Montanaro's act and practices, as described herein, are unfair or deceptive in violation of General Statutes Section 42-110b. THIRD COUNT 1-27. Paragraphs | through 27 of the SECOND COUNT are incorporated as paragraphs | through 27 of the THIRD COUNT as if fully set forth herein. 28. In violation of General Statutes 47a-21(d) Montanaro did not fully return or fully account for deductions from Plaintiffs’ security deposit as prescribed by statute. Montanaro did not properly itemize deductions, made unlawful deductions and fabricated damages to evade the statutory requirements of 47a-21(d). 29. Based on the above, Montanaro's omissions and practices, as alleged herein have been and are unfair as they resulted in an ascertainable loss to Plaintiffs and are unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and immoral and therefore constitute a violation of General Statutes Section 42-110b(a). 30. Montanaro's act and practices, as described herein, are unfair or deceptive in violation of General Statutes Section 42-110b. FOURTH COUNT 1-30. Paragraphs | through 30 of the THIRD COUNT are incorporated as paragraphs | through 30 of the FOURTH COUNT as if fully set forth herein. 31. Montanaro negotiated Plaintiffs’ lease in bad faith and thereby breached the implied covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.32. Based on the above, Montanaro's omissions and practices, as alleged herein have been and are unfair as they resulted in an ascertainable loss to Plaintiffs and are unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and immoral and therefore constitute a violation of General Statutes Section 42-110b(a). 33. Montanaro's act and practices, as described herein, are unfair or deceptive in violation of General Statutes Section 42-110b. FIFTH COUNT 1-33. Paragraphs 1 through 30 of the FOURTH COUNT are incorporated as paragraphs | through 30 of the FIFTH COUNT as if fully set forth herein. 34. Montanaro refused to extend Plaintiffs' Lease and freely admitted that it was her "policy" not to allow the Plaintiffs to extend their lease despite including a clause to that effect and that such "policy" had been in place many years prior to Plaintiffs entering into a lease with Montanaro and thereby committed a Material Breach of Contract. 35. Based on the above, Montanaro's omissions and practices, as alleged herein have been and are unfair as they resulted in an ascertainable loss to Plaintiffs and are unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and immoral and therefore constitute a violation of General Statutes Section 42-110b(a). 36. | Montanaro's act and practices, as described herein, are unfair or deceptive in violation of General Statutes Section 42-110b. SIXTH COUNT 1-36. Paragraphs | through 36 of the FIFTH COUNT are incorporated as paragraphs 1 through 30 of the SIXTH COUNT as if fully set forth herein. 37. In violation of General Statutes Section 53a-119 Montanaro, having been sued in Housing Court for violation of Bridgeport Housing Code 15.12.250 by Plaintiffs, and having signed a Stipulated Agreement in which she agreed to not charge Plaintiffs rent or use and occupancy payments in order to end that suit, knew or should have known that she could not lawfully collect rent or use and occupancy payments from Plaintiffs and yet did withhold rent or use and occupancy from Plaintiffs’ security deposit. 38. Based on the above, Montanaro's omissions and practices, as alleged herein have been and are unfair as they resulted in an ascertainable loss to Plaintiffs and are unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and immoral and therefore constitute a violation of General Statutes Section 42-110b(a). 39. Montanaro's act and practices, as described herein, are unfair or deceptive in violation of General Statutes Section 42-110b.PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court for the following relief: 1 Enter judgement against Defendant and in favor of the Plaintiffs on each count of this Complaint; 2. An order, pursuant to General Statutes Section 42-110(g), directing Defendant to pay Compensatory Damages in the amount of $1500.00 to Plaintiffs for violations of General Statutes Section 42-110b; 3. An order, pursuant to General Statutes Section 42-110(g), directing Defendant to pay civil penalties of $4000.00 to each Plaintiff for violation of General Statutes Section 42-110b and General Statutes 47a-5; 4. An order, pursuant to General Statutes 42-110(g), directing Defendant to pay damages of $5600.00 to Plaintiffs for violation of General Statutes Section 42-110b and General Statutes 47a- 21(d); 5. An order, pursuant to General Statutes Section 42-110(g), directing Defendant to pay Puntitive Damages to the Plaintiffs for violations of General Statutes Section 42-110b; 6. An order, pursuant to General Statutes Section 42-110(g), directing Defendant to pay Treble Damages to the Plaintiffs according to General Statutes 52-564 for violations of General Statutes 53a-119 and General Statutes Section 42-110b and; 7. Costs of this suit, and; 8. Any such other relief in law or equity as the Court deems appropriate and just. Dated at Stamford, Connecticut this day of March 9, 2015. Plgintiff Pro Se 208 E. 51%. Street, #365 New York, New York 10022 Tel. (917) 805-6435No. FST-CV15-5014471-S JEREMY COLLINS, : SUPERIOR COURT MOLLY MCCULLOUGH F Plaintiffs JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD vs. 7 AT STAMFORD MARGARET MONTANARO Defendant . March 9, 2015 STATEMENT OF AMOUNT IN DEMAND The amount, legal interest or property in demand is in excess of $15000.00, exclusive of interests and costs. 208 E. 51". Street, #365 New York, New York 10022 Tel. (917) 805-6435 CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE This is to certify that a copy of the Revised Complaint and Statement of Amount in Demand was mailed via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, and email, on 3/9/2015 to Counsel for the Defendant: Law Offices of James A. Cuddy 525 Bridgeport Avenue Suite 201 Shelton, CT, 06484 Mcklawjac@aol.com f. feremy Collins Plaintiff Pro Se 208 E. 51%. Street, #365 New York, New York 10022 Tel. (917) 805-6435 BY: