Ariane Vuono

The case involved a contract dispute over construction of a cannabis cultivation facility, in which the general contractor sought arbitration for alleged nonpayment and an order allowing it to suspend performance. The arbitrator issued an interim order granting preliminary injunctive relief, but the Superior Court judge denied confirmation on the ground that only final awards are confirmable under the Massachusetts Arbitration Act. A single justice of the Appeals Court vacated that ruling, concluding that courts have authority to confirm certain interim arbitration orders, and remanded for further consideration. The Appeals Court dismissed the property owner's appeal, ruling that the single justice's interlocutory remand order was not appealable to a full panel.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, plaintiffs Paul and Joyce Aspell sued their neighbors, the Raads, seeking to claim title by adverse possession or alternatively a prescriptive easement over a strip of land between their properties in Natick, Massachusetts. After a jury-waived trial where the parties waived detailed findings of fact, the trial judge ruled that the Aspells had established adverse possession only over a small triangular portion near their swimming pool but not over the larger disputed area, and denied the prescriptive easement claim entirely. The Aspells appealed, arguing the decision lacked a rational basis in the evidence. The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment, holding that under the deferential standard of review applicable due to the waiver of findings, the record contained sufficient evidence to support the trial judge's determinations regarding the elements of adverse possession and prescriptive easement.

propertyprocedure

The case Commonwealth v. Carlos Cuba concerned whether fingerprint evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and breaking and entering a motor vehicle. The Appeals Court affirmed the convictions, holding that a single partial fingerprint on the victim's car doorframe was sufficient to prove identity because the evidence permitted the inference that the defendant left it during the crime and ruled out any reasonable possibility that he touched the car at another time. The court further concluded that the expert witness's testimony, which improperly described the fingerprint match in terms of scientific certainty, did not create a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice in light of the extensive cross-examination addressing the limitations of fingerprint analysis.

criminal lawprocedure

The plaintiff, a student with learning disabilities, sued Ross University School of Veterinary Medicine after his dismissal from the veterinary program, claiming that the school had promised but failed to provide required accommodations during his clinical rotations at a partner institution. He asserted claims under the Consumer Protection Act (G.L. c. 93A), for misrepresentation, and for breach of contract. A Superior Court judge granted summary judgment to Ross, finding the 93A and misrepresentation claims barred by the statute of limitations and no evidence of a breached contract. The Appeals Court affirmed the dismissal of the 93A and misrepresentation claims because they accrued no later than the 2017 dismissal and were filed in 2022, but reversed on the breach of contract claim, holding that the plaintiff's evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Ross had promised accommodations that extended to the clinical year.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Sunpin Energy Services seeking a special permit from the Petersham Zoning Board of Appeals to construct a large-scale ground-mounted solar energy system on private land, which required clearing about 14 acres of forest. The board denied the permit by a 2-1 vote, with the dissenting member citing incompatibility with the town's general welfare and state policies discouraging solar projects in forests, despite the project complying with zoning bylaws. The Land Court upheld the denial on summary judgment, but the Appeals Court reversed, holding that the board exceeded its authority because the use is protected under G.L. c. 40A, §3, permitted by special permit, and meets all local requirements, making the denial improper.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryproperty

The case involved Kristian Maraj's appeal from his Superior Court conviction for reckless operation of a motor vehicle, which stemmed from a high-speed police chase that ended in a crash into a house. Maraj challenged the trial judge's refusal to exclude the sole Black juror from the random selection of alternates, arguing it violated his constitutional rights to a fair jury, and also claimed error in the jury instructions describing two elements of the offense as self-explanatory. The Appeals Court affirmed the conviction, holding that state law under G.L. c. 234A, § 68 mandates random selection of alternates without judicial discretion to deviate based on race, and that this process did not infringe on the right to a jury from a fair cross-section of the community. The court further found no substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice from the instructions, given the overwhelming evidence that Maraj operated a vehicle on public ways.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In this landlord-tenant dispute, Phyllis Ndoro filed a no-cause summary process action in Housing Court to evict tenant Maritza Torres from an apartment subject to a rent subsidy. Torres raised counterclaims including breach of the warranty of habitability based on a rotting bathroom underflooring condition that persisted for nine months and violated the State sanitary code, as well as claims under G.L. c. 93A; after a bench trial the judge awarded Torres possession and $1,170 in habitability damages but dismissed the remaining counterclaims. On appeal, Torres challenged the dismissal of her c. 93A claim. The Appeals Court reversed that dismissal, holding that the judge's findings of a prolonged, code-violating habitability breach necessarily established a violation of c. 93A under applicable regulations, and remanded for determination of additional damages, attorney's fees, and costs.

propertyproceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a dispute over which party validly held the right to purchase a manufactured housing community in Barnstable County: Crown Communities, LLC, which had signed a purchase and sale agreement with the trust owning the park, or the residents' association, which sought to exercise the statutory right of first refusal under G.L. c. 140, § 32R(c). After a bench trial, the Superior Court judge issued a declaratory judgment for Crown Communities, concluding that the association failed to show it represented at least 51 percent of the resident owners or obtained their approval for the purchase, and also ruled for Crown Communities on the association's counterclaims for tortious interference, violation of G.L. c. 93A, and violation of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act. The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment in part, including the declaratory judgment on the right of first refusal and the rulings on the interference and civil rights counterclaims, but vacated in part the judgment on the c. 93A counterclaim and remanded, holding that the trial judge had applied an incorrect evidentiary standard and committed a mathematical error in counting resident support while leaving open whether Crown Communities engaged in unfair or deceptive acts.

propertycivil rights

The case concerned whether Henry Komosa's 5.6-acre property in Montague qualified for reduced property taxes under Massachusetts General Laws c. 61A, the Agricultural Classification Act, based on his use of the land for growing and harvesting hay. The Appellate Tax Board had ruled that it did not qualify because only approximately 3.6 acres were actively devoted to haying, with the remainder including trees, slopes, and wetlands not reasonably related to the operation. The Appeals Court affirmed the tax board's decision, holding that the statute requires at least five acres to be primarily and directly used for horticultural purposes, and that the board's interpretation of the law and its factual findings based on assessors' evidence were correct.

taxesproperty

The case involved the conviction of Jarrod F. St. Martin for open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior under G.L. c. 272, § 16, based on an incident in which he masturbated in a bedroom where a 12-year-old girl was sleeping and ejaculated on her ankle. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred by failing to define the term "recklessly" in the jury instructions regarding whether the exposure was "open." The Appeals Court agreed that the omission was error but held that it did not create a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice, given the defendant's trial strategy of denying the incident occurred and the strength of the evidence showing intentional exposure. The court therefore affirmed the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a motion to dismiss criminal charges against Michael W. Tyson for assault and battery on a police officer, resisting arrest, and disorderly conduct, based on an incident where a plainclothes officer approached Tyson's parked car near a stabbing scene, opened the door after requests to roll down the window were ignored, and was struck when Tyson pulled the door closed. A District Court judge dismissed all charges for lack of probable cause, and the Commonwealth appealed only the dismissals of the assault and battery and resisting arrest charges. The Appeals Court affirmed the dismissal of the assault and battery charge, finding the complaint application did not establish probable cause that Tyson intentionally touched the officer without legal right or excuse, but reversed the dismissal of the resisting arrest charge, concluding the facts showed Tyson attempted to pull away while being handcuffed and was resistive afterward. The core reasoning focused on reviewing the four corners of the complaint application, construing facts favorably to the Commonwealth, and assessing whether each element of the crimes was supported by probable cause, which is a lower standard than preponderance of the evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned approximately twelve acres of undeveloped land owned by Northeastern University in Nahant, Massachusetts, where the university planned to expand its Marine Science Center. Plaintiffs, including the town and a preservation group, argued that Northeastern had permanently dedicated the land for public use as an ecological preserve, subjecting any development to legislative approval under Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution, and that the town could block construction under promissory estoppel based on alleged assurances when it acquired adjacent park land. The court affirmed summary judgment for Northeastern, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked evidence of any formal dedication of the land to public use and that Northeastern had made no unambiguous promise to preserve the property as open space or a wildlife refuge. As a result, the land remained private property not subject to Article 97 protections, and the estoppel claim failed.

propertyenvironmentbusiness & regulatory