Still working through a divorce from a woman serving 4.5 years in prison for second-degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a minor, a New Canaan man is now seeking to evict her parents from his home. A former middle school guidance counselor in Norwalk, the imprisoned woman pleaded guilty in March for having a sexual relationship with a 13-year-old male student (she’d been arrested in July 2024) including on school grounds. According to Connecticut Judicial Branch records, her husband had filed for divorce twice—in January of 2024 and then again last November (an active legal matter).
This January, he filed papers in state Superior Court to evict his estranged wife’s parents, saying “their right or privilege to occupy the premises has terminated” while noting that his in-laws had lived in the eastern New Canaan house since 2015.
On April 20, the in-laws’ lawyer—attorney Richard Rapice of the Stamford-based Law Office of Richard J. Rapice—filed a Motion To Dismiss, saying the parents had been incorrectly served with the eviction notice (it was placed at the front of the house instead of around back where they live, the Motion said). According to their Motion, their daughter and her husband bought the house—a 3,504-square-foot, four-bedroom Colonial on two acres, tax records show, purchased for $865,000 in 2015— “using funds and proceeds supplied by the Defendants and obtained through the sale of their primary residence.”
“Plaintiffs provided the Plaintiff and [their daughter] with money under the promise that they would be entitled to use the Property as their residence through their retirement and senior days,” the Motion said.
It continued: “On or about August 1, 2023, [their daughter] quitclaimed her interest to Plaintiff and, since then and continuing to present, he remains the sole owner of the Property Between October 8, 2015 and present, Defendants have made substantial improvements thereto, including but not limited to the construction of an in-law’s quarters on the rear of the grounds and behind the main house; at all times relevant, Defendants have resided in the rear of the property.”
In response, the husband on April 27 filed an Objection to the Motion through his attorneys—Joseph DaSilva, Jr. Marc J. Grenier of Norwalk-based Russo & Rizio, LLC. In it, they say a “proper and valid notice to quit” was served on the in-laws and that they’re “mischaracterizing the physical description of the property and their use of the property.”
The objection continued: “First, in relation to the physical description of the residence located on the Premises, the defendants’ characterization of the residence as a ‘free standing structure at the back’ or ‘rear premises continually occupied by the Defendant’ is intentionally misleading.
