OUTCOME: Verdict for Plaintiff After 2 Day Jury Trial
Attorney Rockwood represented the Plaintiff Washington Street Realty Trust, the owner of a mixed-use building in Norwood, MA. The Defendant was a long-time tenant at the subject premises. The Plaintiff... alleged the Defendant caused significant waste to the property by, among other things, improperly and negligently maintaining his pet dogs. After a two-day jury trial in Norfolk Superior Court, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff.
Land use and zoning
Drake Realty Trust v. Sharon Zoning Board of Appeals: 18 LCR 138a; MISC 08-365630
Mar 02, 2010
OUTCOME: Summary Judgment in favor of Town of Sharon
Plaintiff filed its unverified Complaint on January 2, 2008, pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, § 17, appealing a decision of Defendants which denied a request for a variance (“Variance 2”) on property located ...at 13 Drake Circle, Sharon, Massachusetts (“Locus”). Attorney Rockwood represented the Defendant Shaon Zoning Board, on whose behalf he filed their Answer on January 28, 2008. This court issued an Order of Remand on February 26, 2008. Following another denial by Defendants of Plaintiff’s request for a variance (“Variance 3”), Plaintiff filed a Motion to Add Denial of Sharon Zoning Board of Appeals Decision Following Remand on September 15, 2008. Attorney Rockwood filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on February 27, 2009, together with supporting memorandum and Appendix. On March 30, 2009, Plaintiff filed its Opposition, together with supporting memorandum. A summary judgment hearing was held on June 1, 2009, at which time the motion was taken under advisement. A decision of today’s date has been issued.
In accordance with that decision it is:
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff has not sustained its burden of showing a basis for either Variance 2 or Variance 3.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendants’ decision to deny Variance 2 and Variance 3 was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable and was not beyond the scope of their authority.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is ALLOWED.
