Posts tagged "Bryan"

Commonwealth v. Bryan (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-016-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12140   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  ATUNBI BRYAN.       Suffolk.     November 7, 2016. – January 20, 2017.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Botsford, Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ.     Practice, Criminal, Mistrial.  Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.       Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on February 26, 2016.   The case was heard by Duffly, J.     Nicholas Brandt, Assistant District Attorney (Gregory D. Henning, Assistant District Attorney, also present) for the Commonwealth. Paul J. Davenport for the defendant.     Gaziano, J.  The defendant was one of three occupants of a van that was stopped by a Boston police officer for a traffic violation (driving without headlights) in the early morning hours of April 12, 2014.  Police officers issued an exit order, as a safety precaution, based on certain facts that unfolded during the motor vehicle stop.  When the defendant, the rear seat passenger, got up to get out of the van, a police officer observed a handgun underneath his right thigh. At trial, the judge issued an explicit order precluding defense counsel from introducing evidence that the front seat passenger in the van previously had been convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm.[1]  Defense counsel elicited this testimony anyway.  The judge declared a mistrial, over the defendant’s repeated objection. The defendant subsequently moved to dismiss the charges on double jeopardy grounds, contending that there had been no manifest necessity to declare a mistrial, and that the judge erred in not pursuing a less severe option to cure the introduction of the precluded testimony, such as a curative instruction.  A different Superior Court judge denied the motion, and the defendant filed a petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, in the county court.  The single justice determined that the trial judge had erred in concluding that there was a manifest necessity to declare a mistrial.  The Commonwealth appealed to this court from the single justice’s allowance of the defendant’s petition. Because a determination that a mistrial was manifestly necessary is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, a reviewing court examines such a decision only for abuse of discretion.  See L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169, 185 n.27 (2014).  “We do not disturb the judge’s ruling ‘simply because [we] might have reached a different […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - January 20, 2017 at 10:33 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

Bryan Corporation v. Abrano (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-080-16)

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-12003   BRYAN CORPORATION  vs.  BRYAN ABRANO.       Suffolk.     March 8, 2016. – June 14, 2016.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.     Attorney at Law, Disqualification, Conflict of interest.       Civil actions commenced in the Superior Court Department on November 7, 2014, and March 13, 2015.   After transfer to the business litigation session and consolidation, a motion to disqualify counsel was heard by Janet L. Sanders, J.   The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.     Richard J. Yurko (Douglas W. Salvesen with him) for the defendant. Euripides D. Dalmanieras (Caroline Stoker Donovan with him) for the plaintiff.     CORDY, J.  The defendant, Bryan Abrano (Bryan), appeals from a Superior Court judge’s order disqualifying his attorneys, members of the firm of Yurko, Salvesen & Remz, P.C. (YSR), from representing him in a dispute against the plaintiff, Bryan Corporation (company), of which Bryan is a shareholder.   The Superior Court judge granted the plaintiff’s motion to disqualify on the ground that YSR’s representation of Bryan violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.7, as appearing in 471 Mass. 1335 (2015), or in the alternative, Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.9, as appearing in 471 Mass. 1359 (2015), governing the concurrent and successive representation of clients, respectively.  Because we conclude that YSR’s conduct violated rule 1.7′s prohibition against the simultaneous representation of adverse parties, we affirm the order of disqualification.[1] 1.  Background.  We summarize the facts relevant to the posture of this controversy, which arises from a dispute between family members who are shareholders in a close corporation.[2]  The company, which is headquartered in Woburn, was incorporated in 1985 as a close corporation and supplies pharmaceuticals and medical devices.  Since October, 2008, the company has had three shareholders:  Bryan; his sister, Bridget Rodrigue (Bridget); and their mother, Kim Abrano (Kim).  Kim holds fifty-one per cent of the company, Bryan holds thirty-three per cent, and Bridget holds sixteen per cent.  Bryan, Bridget, and Kim all obtained their shares from Frank Abrano (Frank), who founded the company, and who is Kim’s estranged husband and Bryan and Bridget’s father.  Bryan and Bridget were directors of the company until July, 2014.[3]  Bryan was the company’s president and chief executive officer until 2013, when he was replaced by Libor Krupica.  Bridget was the […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 14, 2016 at 2:36 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , ,