Dedham, MA
Probate Lawyer at Dedham, MA
Practice Areas: Probate, Estate Planning, Divorce & Separation
OUTCOME: Judgment for the Defendants
We represented the Defendants in a case where a plaintiff taxi driver had charged the defendant dispatch company with misclassifying him as an independent contractor. The Judge found that the plaintif ... f could not satisfy the test for employee status, so the defendant was entitled to summary judgment
OUTCOME: Not Guilty
Taxi driver was driving a passenger who called 911 alleging she was being kidnapped. Though the allegations made the national news creating a lot of publicity and fear of being a passenger in a Boston ... taxicab, at trial we were able to establish that the Defendant was not guilty of kidnapping. In fact, the taxi driver was taking the drunk passenger to a safe place after her boyfriend left her in the cab as a fare evader.
OUTCOME: Judgment for the Plaintiff Pharmacists
We represented the Plaintiff in this this case, which involved two pharmacists who were victims of age discrimination in the workplace when their supervisor told them it was time for them to retire. ... They initially lost their case when they presented it for review at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD). Our firm took the case and had it overturned on appeal. We then took it through to a three day-trial and won damages and attorney fees for the clients. It was found that where two complainant pharmacists had alleged that they were wrongfully fired by a respondent health care provider in violation of G.L.c. 151B because of their age, that their claim had merit and that the stated non-discriminatory reasons for the terminations put forward by the respondent were merely pretextual.
OUTCOME: Judgment for the Defendant. We had the case overturned on Appeal.
The Defendant confessed to possession of a handgun. The case went to appeal. We represented the Defendant on his trial and on appeal. The issue on the appeal was whether the confession of the Defend ... ant, a 17-year old boy was the voluntary product of his free will or whether it was coerced by the police officers. The Defendant was not given miranda warnings. The Commonwealth argued that Miranda warnings were not necessary as the Defendant was in his own home; hence he was not in custody. We argued that the Defendant was in custody based on the totality of the circumstances test at the time requiring Miranda warnings. The Commonwealth argued, the Defendant was not in custody as the officers were invited into the home. The colloquy described by Sergeant Gillespie figured as a "custodial interrogation" of the defendant, the term being defined as "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966). A situation of custodial interrogation would call for "procedural safeguards effective to secure the [person's] privilege against self-incrimination": thus the safeguard of Miranda warnings about constitutional rights. Ibid.
OUTCOME: Case was overturned in my Clients Favor at the Appeals Court
COMMONWEALTH vs. TITUS COLEMAN 49 Mass. App. Ct. 150 November 18, 1999 - April 21, 2000 Suffolk County Present: PORADA, KAPLAN, & GILLERMAN, JJ The circumstances of three police officers' aggressi ... ve and persistent interrogation of a nineteen year old man, on whom suspicion had focused, in a small closed room from which he could not leave, constituted a custodial interrogation requiring the administration of Miranda warnings; where no such warnings were given, the defendant's resulting incriminating statements should have been suppressed. [153-156] COMPLAINT received and sworn to in the South Boston Division of the District Court Department on February 21, 1997. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Robert C. Rufo, J., and, on transfer to the Dorchester Division, the case was tried before Sarah B. Singer, J. Christine M. Nicastro for the defendant. Kristine Luongo Tammaro, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
OUTCOME: Case was overturned in my Clients Favor at the Appeals Court
Appeals Court of Massachusetts.·49 Mass. App. Ct. 1102 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000)COMMONWEALTH V. MONTROND COMMONWEALTH VS. BRUCE MONTROND. NO. 98-P-2022. APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS. MARCH 29, 2000. ... Judgments reversed. Verdicts set aside. Judgments for the defendant. Represented Mr. Montrond on his Appeal.