The Connecticut Supreme Court on Thursday allowed a municipal fair rent commission to get involved in a landlord-tenant eviction action in state court, finding the local body clearly has an interest in advocating for its statutory right to adjudicate complaints and enforce its own orders.

The justices in their unanimous opinion let the Middletown Fair Rent Commission intervene in a summary process eviction, turning away a landlord's contention that it lacked standing. The commission has a statutory interest in enforcing a cease and desist order barring Kosel Equity LLC from trying to evict Mark MacGregor while the tenant's retaliation complaint was still pending, the high court held.

"Contrary to the plaintiff's assertion, the trial court was acting well within its discretion to conclude that the MFRC was not intervening as an advocate for the defendant but, rather, to promote its own institutional interests, reflecting a broader perspective than that offered by the individual defendant," the justices said, also pointing out that the ruling at issue did not make any decision on the merits of either party's claims.

The case came under public scrutiny after Justice Steven D. Ecker brought it up during his renomination hearing before the state legislature's joint judiciary committee in February. He said the case presented the state's top court with what he believes is its first motion for sanctions based on alleged misuse of artificial intelligence and false citations.

On Tuesday, the court ordered GLG Law LLC and attorney Ian G. Gottlieb to explain why they should not be sanctioned for submitting a brief containing AI-introduced errors on behalf of Kosel and in a companion case known as TOV Realty LLC v. Suarez. A hearing is set for July 7.

In the TOV decision on June 9, the justices let a judge stay an eviction proceeding while a fair rent commission complaint was pending.

In Kosel, MacGregor said his landlord issued a notice to quit in May 2025 after he filed a fair rent complaint over a hike from $1,175 to $1,500 per month. The commission sided with MacGregor on a retaliation claim, ordering Kosel to rescind the notice to quit and to accept the $1,175 while the fair rent complaint was pending.

Kosel appealed, and that case is ongoing, but it also moved in state trial court to evict MacGregor on grounds including nonpayment of rent. The tenant filed another retaliation complaint; the commission ordered Kosel to stop the eviction process and imposed daily $100 fines, and the landlord filed another appeal that is also ongoing.

The commission then successfully moved to intervene in the eviction case. Kosel asked the high court to review that decision as an interlocutory public interest appeal under Connecticut General Statutes Section 52-265a.

The landlord argued that Superior Court Judge Walter A. Menjivar was wrong to allow the commission get involved for several reasons, including that it lacks express statutory authority to intervene and the judge improperly considered issues of judicial economy. The judge weighed the possibility of inconsistent outcomes on matters that overlap, like what constituted fair rent and whether MacGregor failed to pay, which Kosel said was improper.

In its opinion Thursday, the state's top court found it was "demonstrably incorrect" to say the commission needed express statutory authority to intervene and Kosel's standing claim "warrants little discussion," noting it is unclear whether typical standing requirements apply in the context of permissive intervention.

"It is unnecessary for us to reach the issue in the present case, and we will not do so, when, as here, the parties have neither cited the relevant cases nor examined the relevant legal issues, leaving us on our own to resolve a question that has perplexed and divided a generation or more of judges and legal scholars," Justice Ecker wrote in the high court's decision

"Regardless of the precise standing analysis to be applied, if any, it is clear to us that the MFRC has met the legal prerequisites necessary to participate in this case as a governmental entity that has been granted permissive intervention," the opinion continued.

The high court looked to its own 2005 opinion in Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp. , which laid out five factors for allowing permissive intervention, and said Judge Menjivar properly considered them. Woven into the factors are questions of judicial economy, according to the opinion.

The factors were modeled on their counterparts in federal court. The intervenor must file a timely motion and make showings that it has "an interest in the litigation," that the outcome of the case might harm its interest and that the parties do not adequately protect its interest; in addition, the court "must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties' rights," the justices said in a footnote.

The Connecticut Supreme Court also found support for its decision in its own 1986 opinion in Milford v. Local 1566, Council 4, AFSCME . That ruling permitted a state arbitration board to intervene in a case in which an employer sought to vacate an award because the arbitrator was not properly sworn; the justices at the time said that although the board had no interest in the validity of the award, it had "a significant interest in protecting the validity of the procedures used to determine the award."

Counsel for Kosel, MacGregor and the commission did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Kosel Equity is represented by Ian G. Gottlieb, David E. Rosenberg and Paul J. Small of GLG Law LLC.

The Middletown Fair Rent Commission is represented by Philip G. Kent of Brenner Saltzman & Wallman LLP.

MacGregor is represented by Connecticut Legal Services.

The cases are Kosel Equity LLC v. MacGregor, case number SC 21184, and TOV Realty LLC v. Suarez, case number SC 21183, in the Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut.

--Editing by Covey Son.