Posts tagged "Brockton"

Brockton Housing Authority v. Mello (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-010-18)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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   16-P-1708                                       Appeals Court   BROCKTON HOUSING AUTHORITY  vs.  KEITH G. MELLO.     No. 16-P-1708.   Plymouth.     November 6, 2017. – January 26, 2018.   Present:  Sullivan, Blake, & Singh, JJ.     Housing Authority.  Landlord and Tenant, Termination of tenancy.  Controlled Substances.  Words, “Keeping.”       Civil action commenced in the Southeast Division of the Housing Court Department on January 25, 2016.   The case was heard by Anne Kenney Chaplin, J.     Laura F. Camara for the defendant. Caitlin P. Milone for the plaintiff.     SULLIVAN, J.  Three months into Keith G. Mello’s occupancy of a one-bedroom apartment at the Caffrey Towers development (premises or apartment), the Brockton Housing Authority (BHA) filed an action pursuant to G. L. c. 139, § 19, to void his tenancy.  Following a trial, a judge of the Southeastern Housing Court ruled that Mello “engaged in conduct, and allowed his guests to engage in conduct, which constitutes the keeping of controlled substances in the premises.”  She entered a judgment voiding the lease and permanently enjoining Mello from entering any portion of Caffrey Towers, a Federally subsidized housing development for the elderly and the disabled.  See New Bedford Hous. Authy. v. Olan, 435 Mass. 364, 369 (2001) (Olan).  Mello appeals from the final judgment.[1]  We affirm. Background.  We summarize the facts as found by the judge.  Dennis Sheedy, a BHA asset manager, observed Mello’s guests arriving at Caffrey Towers in an impaired state, and unwilling (or unable) to cooperate with security.  On December 1, 2015, Anthony Giardini, a Brockton police officer who served as the community liaison to the BHA conducted an investigation into complaints in or about the premises.  As he approached Mello’s apartment, he heard loud voices coming from inside and smelled the odor of “some sort of substance.”[2] After entering the apartment, Officer Giardini saw three people, including Mello, sitting in a room.  There was smoke that smelled like marijuana and crack cocaine.  He observed drug paraphernalia in plain view, including a flat mirror “lined horizontally,” lying on a room partition, a debit card, and the remains of what could be a filter for a crack pipe.  He also saw two daggers, one of which was next to the mirror within reach of Mello, who was in “an intoxicated state.”  Officer Giardini concluded that those present in the apartment had been smoking […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - January 26, 2018 at 4:29 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

Howell v. Brockton Division of the District Court Department (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-068-17)

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   SJC-12217   CURTIS HOWELL  vs.  BROCKTON DIVISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT DEPARTMENT.     Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.     May 3, 2017.     Curtis Howell appeals from a judgment of the county court in which the single justice declined to grant his petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.  His petition and other papers, which are disorganized and difficult to decipher, apparently relate to proceedings to evaluate his competency to stand trial on criminal charges in the District Court.  We affirm.   The case is before us on Howell’s memorandum and appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires a party challenging an interlocutory ruling of the trial court to “set forth the reasons why review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means.”  Howell has not carried his burden under the rule.  In his memorandum, rather than demonstrating that the District Court judge has made a ruling that cannot be remedied in the ordinary appellate process or by other means, he presses an unsubstantiated claim that he has been subjected to unlawful surveillance since childhood by means of an implanted device.  In particular, he does not offer any reason why G. L. c. 123, § 17, which permits any person found incompetent to stand trial to petition the court at any time for a competency hearing, does not afford adequate review of a determination of incompetency.  Moreover, we have thoroughly reviewed the papers submitted to the single justice and find no basis to disturb her determination that Howell is not entitled to relief.[1]   Judgment affirmed.     The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.   Curtis Howell, pro se.      [1] There is some suggestion that Howell may have been represented by counsel in the District Court.  He proceeded pro se in the county court.  “Absent extraordinary circumstances, a party represented by counsel in pending criminal proceedings is not entitled to challenge interlocutory rulings pro se.”  Azubuko v. Commonwealth, 464 Mass. 1014, 1014 (2013), citing Commonwealth v Molino, 411 Mass. 149, 152 (1991). Full-text Opinions

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 3, 2017 at 7:13 pm

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

City of Brockton v. Energy Facilities Siting Board (No. 1) (and two consolidated cases) (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-131-14)

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   SJC-11406 CITY OF BROCKTON  vs.  ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD (No. 1) (and two consolidated cases[1]). Suffolk.     March 4, 2014. – July 31, 2014.   Present:  Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.[2]     Energy Facilities Siting Board.  Public Utilities, Energy company, Electric company.  Electric Company.  Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act.  Administrative Law, Decision, Judicial review, Substantial evidence.  Environment, Air pollution, Environmental impact report.  Municipal Corporations, Electric plant, Water supply.       Civil actions commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on August 24, August 28, and September 2, 2009.   After consolidation, the case was reported by Spina, J.      Lisa C. Goodheart (Phelps T. Turner, Joshua D. Nadreau, & Staci Rubin with her) for Frank J. Babbin & others. John L. Holgerson for town of West Bridgwater. Gregor I. McGregor (Nathaniel Stevens with him) for city of Brockton. Sookyoung Shin, Assistant Attorney General, for Energy Facilities Siting Board. David S. Rosenzweig (Erika J. Hafner & Michael J. Koehler with him) for Brockton Power Company LLC. The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: Veronica Eady for Conservation Law Foundation. Rahsaan D. Hall, Matthew Cregor, Sasha N. Kopf, Tyler D. Crosby, & Priya A. Lane for Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justice. Wendy B. Jacobs & Aladdine D. Joroff for Hands Across the River Coalition.     BOTSFORD, J.  Brockton Power Company LLC (Brockton Power, or company) filed a petition pursuant to G. L. c. 164, § 69J¼ (§ 69J¼), with the Energy Facilities Siting Board (board) to construct and operate a 350-megawatt combined-cycle energy generating facility (facility) powered by natural gas and ultra-low sulfur distillate (ULSD) on a 13.2-acre lot in the city of Brockton (city).  After extensive hearings, the board approved Brockton Power’s petition, with conditions.  The city, the town of West Bridgewater (town), and a group of residents of the city and the town (residents), all interveners in the proceedings before the board (collectively, interveners), filed appeals in the county court pursuant to G. L. c. 164, § 69P, and G. L. c. 25, § 5.[3]  A single justice reserved and reported the case to the full court.[4]      On appeal the interveners argue[5] that the board (1) failed to adopt and apply the 2002 environmental justice policy that is a binding environmental protection policy of the Commonwealth; (2) improperly relied on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 31, 2014 at 7:20 pm

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

Brockton Power Company LLC v. Energy Facilities Siting Board (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-132-14)

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   SJC-11405 SJC-11407   BROCKTON POWER COMPANY LLC  vs.  ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD & others.[1] CITY OF BROCKTON  vs.  ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD & another[2] (No. 2). Suffolk.     March 4, 2014. – July 31, 2014.   Present:  Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.[3]     Energy Facilities Siting Board.  Public Utilities, Electric company, Energy company.  Municipal Corporations, Electric plant, Water supply.  Environment, Air pollution.  Electric Company.  Administrative Law, Decision, Judicial review, Substantial evidence.       Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on October 28, 2011.   The case was reported by Spina, J.   Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on October 26, 2011.   The case was reported by Spina, J.     Gregor I. McGregor (Nathaniel Stevens with him) for city of Brockton. David S. Rosenzweig (Erika J. Hafner & Michael J. Koehler with him) for Brockton Power Company LLC. Sookyoung Shin, Assistant Attorney General, for Energy Facilities Siting Board. Lisa C. Goodheart (Phelps T. Turner, Joshua D. Nadreau, & Staci Rubin with her) for Frank J. Babbin & others. Wendy B. Jacobs & Aladdine D. Joroff, for Massachusetts Rivers Alliance & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief.     BOTSFORD, J.  On August 7, 2009, the Energy Facilities Siting Board (board), acting pursuant to G. L. c. 164, § 69J¼ (§ 69J¼), approved the petition of Brockton Power Company LLC (Brockton Power or company), to build and operate a 350-megawatt combined-cycle energy generating facility (facility or project) powered by natural gas and ultra-low sulfur distillate (ULSD) in the city of Brockton (city).  As approved by the board, the facility would use wastewater from the city’s advanced wastewater reclamation facility (AWRF) for its cooling tower.  In a consolidated appeal by three of the interveners, we affirmed the board’s decision.  See Brockton v. Energy Facilities Siting Bd. (No. 1), ante     (2014) (Brockton [No. 1]), decided today. On April 9, 2010, while the consolidated appeal was pending, Brockton Power submitted a project change filing (PCF) to the board, seeking approval of three changes to its project.  In the PCF, Brockton Power sought to:  (1) change the source of the facility’s cooling tower water from the AWRF to the Brockton municipal water supply (BMWS); (2) eliminate the use of ULSD as an alternative fuel and rely solely on natural gas […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 31, 2014 at 3:45 pm

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