Navy Yard Four Associates, LLC v. Department of Environmental Protection, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-130-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 14-P-607 Appeals Court NAVY YARD FOUR ASSOCIATES, LLC vs. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION & another.[1] No. 14-P-607. Suffolk. April 2, 2015. – September 4, 2015. Present: Kafker, C.J., Kantrowitz, & Hanlon, JJ. Harbors. Real Property, Harbors, Restrictions, Littoral property, License. Trust, Public trust. License. Department of Environmental Protection. Administrative Law, Agency’s authority, Regulations, Agency’s interpretation of statute, Agency’s interpretation of regulation. Regulation. Statute, Construction. Words, “Tidelands.” Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on December 20, 2011. The case was heard by Peter M. Lauriat, J., on motions for judgment on the pleadings and for partial summary judgment. Donald R. Pinto, Jr., for the plaintiff. Seth Schofield, Assistant Attorney General, for Department of Environmental Protection. John A. Pike, for Conservation Law Foundation, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. KAFKER, C.J. This appeal arises from a dispute over public accommodation requirements imposed within a waterways license issued by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) pursuant to G. L. c. 91 for property currently owned by the plaintiff, Navy Yard Four Associates, LLC (NYF). The property is an approximately 2.6-acre parcel of land in Charlestown abutting Boston Harbor. It is the site of a 224-unit apartment building development known as Harborview. DEP concluded in 2004 that the project was a nonwater-dependent use sited on filled “Commonwealth [t]idelands” and therefore special conditions were included as part of its waterways license to ensure that the project served a “proper public purpose.” One of these special conditions was that seventy-five percent of the ground floor of the building be reserved for facilities of public accommodation. In 2009, NYF sought to amend its license, particularly the public accommodation requirements, contending that (1) G. L. c. 91 limits “Commonwealth tidelands” to submerged lands and excludes the tidal flats on which this project is sited, and (2) “Commonwealth tidelands” do not include property owned by the Boston Redevelopment Authority, which owned the property at the time of permitting, or other such political subdivisions or quasi public agencies of the Commonwealth. DEP declined to grant the amendment, and NYF appealed DEP’s decision to the Superior Court in accordance with G. L. c. 30A, § 14, naming both DEP and the Commonwealth as defendants. The Superior Court affirmed DEP’s denial of NYF’s requested c. 91 license amendment and rejected NYF’s request for a declaratory […]
Categories: News Tags: 1113015, Associates, department, Environmental, Four, Lawyers, Navy, Protection, Weekly, Yard
Commonwealth v. Moody (and four companion cases) (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-152-13)
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‑11277 COMMONWEALTH vs. CORY A. MOODY (and four companion cases[1]). Berkshire. April 1, 2013. ‑ August 9, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Eavesdropping. Evidence, Wiretap. Constitutional Law, Federal preemption. Federal Preemption. Practice, Criminal, Warrant. Search and Seizure, Warrant. Cellular Telephone. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on December 17, 2010. Pretrial motions to suppress evidence were heard by Daniel A. Ford, J., and a question of law was reported by him to the Appeals Court. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Timothy M. Farris for Devin Newman. Edmund R. St. John, III, for Cory A. Moody. Joseph A. Pieropan, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: Dana A. Curhan & Matthew R. Segal for American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts. Martha Coakley, Attorney General, & Jessica V. Barnett & Patrick Hanley, Assistant Attorneys General, for the Attorney General. Michael J. Iacopino, of New Hampshire, Veronica J. White, Benjamin Leatherman, Peter Ettenberg, Frank Camera, Peter Clifford, & Max D. Stern, for Jorge Areiza & others. CORDY, J. The defendants, Cory A. Moody and Devin Newman, were separately indicted for various violations of the Controlled Substances Act, G. L. c. 94C, stemming from their alleged involvement in an organized group engaged in drug trafficking in Berkshire County. In particular, Moody was indicted for one count of trafficking in cocaine, G. L. c. 94C, § 32E (b); one count of distribution of cocaine, G. L. c. 94C, § 32A (c); and two counts of conspiracy to violate the drug laws, G. L. c. 94C, § 40.[2] For his part, Newman was indicted for one count of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, G. L. c. 94C, § 40. Prior to trial, the defendants filed separate motions to suppress the fruits of several search warrants issued under the Massachusetts wiretap statute, G. L. c. 272, § 99, which authorized the interception of calls and text messages sent over their cellular telephones. The defendants argued that the interception of these forms of communication was beyond the scope of authority provided under G. L. c. 272, § 99 and, thus, preempted by the cognate provisions of the Federal wiretap statute, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 et seq. (2006 & Supp. V 2011). In a consolidated decision, the motion judge denied the […]
Hubway Gets Helmets: Vending Machines to Be Placed at Four Stations
Since Hubway launched in 2011, the successful bike sharing system has struggled with one issue: How to provide helmets. South End Patch News