Posts tagged "Braintree"

Braintree Property Associates, LP v. Marzouki, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-038-17)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS NORFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00144 BRAINTREE PROPERTY ASSOCIATES, LP vs. FRANCO MARZOUKI, DR. WU, LLC, D.B.A EMACK & BOLIOS AND ROBERT ROOK and FRANCO MARZOUKI, CROSS-CLAIM PLAINTIFF, vs. ROBERT ROOK, CROSS-CLAIM DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This action arises out of a lease agreement between the property owner, plaintiff, Braintree Property Associates, LP (“Braintree”), the lease holder, defendant Dr. Wu, LLC, d/b/a Emack & Bolios (“Wu”), for which Robert Rook is the sole owner and manager. Defendants Rook and Franco Marzouki guaranteed Wu’s obligations to Braintree. There is no dispute that Wu breached its lease by vacating the property it leased from Braintree before its lease was up. Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on its claims against Wu, Rook and Marzouki. All defendants oppose. Wu and Rook cross-move for summary judgment against Braintree, improbably claiming that Braintree is entitled to no lost rent at all under the terms of Braintree’s own Lease, which Braintree opposes. Marzouki moves for summary judgment on his cross-claim for indemnification from Rook, which Rook opposes. The issue at the core of this case is a straight-forward dispute about the measure of damages arising from Wu’s undisputed breach of its lease with Braintree. Based on the lease 2 and the undisputed facts, in consideration of the parties’ memoranda of law and oral arguments, and for the reasons that follow, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is ALLOWED. Wu’s cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED. For other reasons, Marzuki’s motion for summary judgment on his cross-claim against Rook is DENIED. FACTS In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draws all reasonable inferences in his favor. Jupin v. Kask, 447 Mass. 141, 143 (2006), citing Coveney v. President & Trustees of the College of the Holy Cross, 388 Mass. 16, 17 (1983). Braintree operates the South Shore Plaza, a shopping mall in Braintree. Rook is the sole owner and manager of Wu, which does business as Emack & Bolios, an ice cream seller. On or about July 25, 2011, Wu, as tenant, entered into a lease (“Lease”) with Braintree for commercial space at the South Shore Plaza. The lease had a five-year term and required Wu to pay rent and fees. The lease term was to commence May 1, 2011 and end May 1, 2016. On or about July 25, 2011, defendants Marzouki and Rook each executed a joint and several guaranty of Wu’s lease obligations. Beginning in June, 2014, Wu stopped paying rent, and did not pay any rent thereafter. Neither Rook nor Marzouki made good on the rent Wu failed […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - November 14, 2017 at 1:04 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

G6 Hospitality Property LLC v. Town of Braintree Board of Health (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-107-17)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS   NORFOLK, ss.                                                                      SUPERIOR COURT                                                                                                 CIVIL ACTION 17-0882     G6 HOSPITALITY PROPERTY LLC   vs.   TOWN OF BRAINTREE BOARD OF HEALTH   MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION   In its complaint in this action, Plaintiff G6 Hospitality Property LLC (“G6”), which operates a Motel 6 located at 125 Union Street, Braintree, Massachusetts (“the Motel”), seeks certiorari review under G.L. c. 249, § 4 of a decision made by the defendant, Town of Braintree Board of Health (“the Board”), to revoke G6’s license to operate the Motel under G.L. c. 140, §32B and c. 111, §122.[1]  At issue before the Court is G6’s application for a temporary restraining order and motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the Board from enforcing its July 13, 2017, decision to revoke G6’s license while this case is litigated. For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that G6 has not shown that it is entitled to a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, as it cannot show that it is likely to succeed on the merits.  Its application and motion are thus DENIED.   FACTS The relevant facts in the administrative record provided to this Court are as follows: Procedural History:  On May 12, 2017, the Board notified the Motel that an emergency license revocation hearing would be held on May 18, 2017, to determine whether, pursuant to G.L. c. 140, §§30 and 32B, G.L. c. 111, §122 and 105 C.M.R. 410, the Motel had “violated certain provisions of [its] license” because of “concerns relating to public health and safety … as the result of the exorbitant number of police-related responses to the motel since 2010, including but not limited to sudden deaths, sexual assaults/offenses, drug overdoses, warrant services, as well as the most recent shooting of a Braintree police officer and apparent suicide [of the officer’s assailant] that took place at Motel 6 on Friday, May 5, 2017.” Representatives of G6 and Braintree Mayor Joseph Sullivan (“the Mayor”) agreed that the Board would not oppose G6’s request to continue the hearing if G6 agreed to voluntarily close the Motel for 45-days, from June 1 to July 15, 2017, during which time G6 would work on improving the Motel’s security protocol.  Accordingly, G6 requested a continuance of the hearing.  The Board approved the Motel’s request.  The Motel voluntarily closed June 1.  The hearing was rescheduled for July 13, 2017.  Prior to the July 13 hearing, a public notice was published in the local newspaper. Facts Disclosed at the July 13, 2017 Hearing:  At the July 13, 2017 hearing (“the Hearing”), the Board heard testimony […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - August 18, 2017 at 5:46 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Aiello v. Planning Board of Braintree, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-044-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   15-P-1321                                       Appeals Court   ROGER AIELLO, trustee,[1]  vs.  PLANNING BOARD OF BRAINTREE & others.[2]     No. 15-P-1321.   Suffolk.     October 20, 2016. – April 14, 2017.   Present:  Meade, Milkey, & Kinder, JJ.     Practice, Civil, Zoning appeal, Standing.  Zoning, Appeal, Person aggrieved, By-law.     Civil action commenced in the Land Court Department on October 14, 2009.   The case was heard by Karyn F. Scheier, J.     Brian K. Bowen for the plaintiff. Jason W. Morgan for McCourt Construction & another. Carolyn M. Murray (Judy A. Levenson also present) for planning board of Braintree.   MEADE, J.  In this matter we examine the issue of standing to appeal from a zoning decision in the context of an abutter’s appeal of decision of a local planning board (board) to allow modification of a 1994 special permit to remove conditions that benefited the residential abutter in terms of visual and auditory impacts.  We conclude that it was error for the judge to find that the plaintiff lacked standing to appeal from the board’s decision.  We address only the merits argued in the plaintiff’s brief and conclude that the board’s decision granting a modified special permit removing the conditions must be reconsidered by the board. Background.  a.  Aiello’s property.  The plaintiff, Roger Aiello, owns fifteen acres of residentially zoned property in Braintree, located directly north of the commercially zoned locus.  Aiello’s property consists of a number of parcels; in addition to single and multifamily residential units, it contains a prior nonconforming catering business and a “semi-agricultural use,” a goat pasture.  One of Aiello’s single-family residences is located within eleven feet of the locus’s northern boundary.  Aiello’s property is at a higher elevation than the locus.  The judge found that the Aiello property has a clear view of the structure on the locus and portions of the parking area.  The farther away one stands from the boundary line, the more visible the locus becomes. The locus.  The locus, now owned by RMT Braintree, LLC, and occupied by McCourt Construction,[3] contains approximately nine acres and is located in both the commercial and watershed protection districts.[4]  The locus is long (approximately 2,000 feet), running from east to west, and narrow (approximately 200 feet).  It currently is improved with a 675-foot-long commercial structure (sometimes referred to as building).  Development of the rear, or […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - April 14, 2017 at 5:16 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,