Haven Realty Trust v. Corrigan, et al. v. O’Connell, et al., Norfolk Superior Court (Civil Action No. 22-01060) (Oct. 10, 2025)
Oct 01, 2025
OUTCOME: Motion for Summary Judgment Allowed
A recent Norfolk Superior Court decision, “Haven Realty Trust v. Corrigan”, underscores the importance of precision in real estate contracts. The court ruled that an option-to-purchase agreement was vo...id and unenforceable because it failed to clearly define the property’s dimensions and lot lines — language left “to be mutually agreed upon” later.
J. Nathan Cole and Alexander R. Zwillinger of Cole Law Partners, P.C. represented the plaintiffs, emphasizing that the ruling “strengthens the reliability of contract law in real estate disputes and allows our clients to move forward free from baseless claims.”
The decision serves as a clear reminder: in real estate transactions, specificity is everything. Ambiguity in describing a property can transform an agreement into little more than “hopes and prayers,” as one attorney aptly noted.
Litigation
J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co. (Goldenberg, J.) (Norfolk County Superior Court) (Civil Action No. 2082-0738)
Dec 06, 2024
OUTCOME: Motion to Vacate Arbitrator's Award allowed by Trial Court; Client Awarded over $1M for Loss Productivity Change Order
Successfully moved to vacate an arbitrator's award, convincing Norfolk Superior Court that the arbitrator made a reversible error of law in interpreting and applying the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Act.
Litigation
Saladin v. Goslee, et al. (Dunigan, J.) (Essex Superior Court) (Civil Action No. 2177CV001037-A)
Oct 30, 2024
OUTCOME: Dismissal of all claims against Mr. Kirk for failure to prosecute claims.
Jonathan L. Kirk, known to rap fans as DaBaby, was sued by fellow performer Donald Saladin — stage name Don Trag — after security personnel fought with Saladin when he opened for Mr. Kirk's at Club Cen...tro in Lawrence on May 17, 2019. Saladin brought claims against Mr. Kirk, South Coast Music Group, and various other entities and individuals relating to his alleged injuries.
Litigation
Saladin v. South Coast Music Group, et al, (Essex Superior Court) (Civil Action No. 2177CV001037-A)
Nov 28, 2023
OUTCOME: Motion for Summary Judgment allowed; all claims against client dismissed.
Complete dismissal of claims against South Coast following successful Motion for Summary Judgment. Saladin alleged South Coast negligently hired and supervised a security guard who was involved in a Ma...y 17, 2019 altercation at Club Centro in Lawrence, MA. Saladin brought claims against South Coast Music Group as manager for rapper Jonathan Kirk (stage name "DaBaby") and various other entities and individuals relating to his alleged injuries.
Construction and development
Secure Our City, Inc. v. ECI Systems, LLC
Mar 15, 2022
OUTCOME: Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Liquidated Damages Provision of Agreement allowed, LD's held to be unenforceable.
Successfully argued that Federal court should dismiss millions in alleged claims for breach of contract against subcontractor client, arguing that contract's damages provision amounted to an unenforcea...ble penalty. Court struck LD's provision in agreement.
Slip and fall accident
Belanger, et al. v. Boys in Berries, LLC, et al., (Ullmann, J.) (Suffolk Superior Court) (Civil Action No. 2012-04432-G)
Jul 03, 2015
OUTCOME: Mr. Cole obtained Summary Judgement for his client on all counts.
Boys in Berries, LLC, d/b/a Ward’s Berry Farm, operates a pick-your-own-fruit farm stand with a retail store located in Sharon. On July 25, 2010, Belanger allegedly tripped and fell over an exposed co...rner of a square wooden pallet supporting a large octagonal cardboard box while leaving the checkout counter of the retail store. The pallet was several inches high and had been placed directly adjacent to the end of the checkout counter. The pallet was set back several inches from the vertical surface of the counter. A large octagonal box, used to store the pick-your-own fruit baskets, had been placed on top of the pallet, and covered the pallet except for its corners. Belanger testified that she had viewed the box, even counting the number of sides, while she was at the checkout counter. However, she claimed that the pallet itself could not be seen from where Belanger had been standing at the checkout counter while she paid. There were a few feet of space between the pallet and a large crate containing melons on the other side of the path that Belanger used to exit the store. Belanger alleged that her eyes were drawn to the melons immediately before she tripped and fell, causing her to be "distracted." The alleged accident occurred on a Sunday around 3 p.m. There was no evidence that the store’s lighting, any debris on the floor or the color of the pallet contributed to the accident.
The court granted summary judgment to the store on all counts, holding that “a pallet with a box on it in a retail store, placed directly adjacent to a checkout counter and not protruding into the checkout aisle, with adequate room to exit the store and no problem with lighting, coloration or debris, is not an unreasonable danger that requires warning. On the contrary, it is fully consistent with a retail store owner’s duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition.” Absent evidence of problems with lighting, coloration, or debris on the floor, this was not a dangerous condition triggering a “duty to remedy.” “In short, because Boys in Berries, LLC did not create an unreasonable danger by its placement of the pallet on which Belanger tripped and fell, it cannot be liable for harm resulting from her fall.”
Insurance
MA Dept of Industrial Accidents v. Costa v. Lewis Gammons Ins. Agency, Inc., C.A. No. SUCV2013-02041
May 18, 2015
OUTCOME: Achieved Summary Judgment on all Counts
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of Third-Party Defendant, Gammons Insurance Agency. The Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, Costa, a trucking company, was a customer of Gammons Insurance. Costa test...ified that he told Gammons he wanted his trucks "to be 'legal' on the road." Gammons, in turn, procured a commercial automobile policy that covered Costa's trucks. Gammons testified that he also offered to obtain a workers compensation policy to cover Costa's drivers but that Costa declined to purchase the workers compensation policy on the basis that he considered his truck drivers "1099 independent contractors" and not employees. Gammons proceeded to procure a commercial automobile policy only. When one of Costa's truck drivers was injured in the course of his employment, he brought a claim work workers compensation benefits against Costa. Costa, in turn, brought a claim against Gammons alleging that Gammons had a duty to explain to Costa that Costa had incorrectly classified his drivers as independent contractors rather than as employees. The court found that Gammons had no duty, absent special circumstances which were not found, to act as an insurance advisor or to obtain workers compensation coverage.
Insurance
Crotty v. Premier Insurance Company of Massachusetts, et al, Suffolk Superior Court, CA No. 2011-01506
Jun 24, 2013
OUTCOME: Obtained Summary Judgment for Defendant on All Counts
Successfully argued Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of defendant insurance agency on alleged breach of contract and violation of G. L. c. 93A claims. Plaintiff, following purchase of an automobi...le, had been told by his agent that pursuant to the Standard Massachusetts Automobile Policy, an inspection of the car was required within tend days to avoid suspension of his coverage. Plaintiff failed to comply with the instructions of the agent to obtain a pre-insurance inspection and, four months later, was involved in an accident in which he claimed damage to his vehicle. The trial court (Hopkins, J.) allowed the defendants' motions and found that the agent was not liable because the evidence established agent had properly instructed the plaintiff to obtain the pre-insurance inspection prior to the loss.
OUTCOME: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Allowed and Affirmed by Appeals Court of Massachusetts
Achieved summary judgment in a negligence case on behalf of restaurant franchisee in case in which plaintiff, a nurse, claimed that she was allergic to Gorgonzola cheese and yet, nevertheless ordered a... Gorgonzola cheese salad with walnuts while failing to tell her server of any supposed allergy. The plaintiff claimed she requested that the waitress substitute blue cheese for the Gorgonzola and that after she took a few bites of the salad, suffered an allergic reaction. Through discovery of the plaintiff's medical records, it was revealed that she had treated with an allergist who told her she was likely not allergic to Gorgonzola, but rather walnuts. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was allowed, and then affirmed by the Appeals Court of Massachusetts, on the basis that plaintiff had failed to provide any expert witness testimony regarding her alleged food allergies.
Slip and fall accident
Lopez v. Olympia & York State, Suffolk Superior Court C.A. No. 2005-02295
Nov 13, 2007
OUTCOME: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Allowed
Achieved summary judgment in a negligence personal injury case on behalf of property owner and management in case in which cleaning company's employee claimed she slipped and fell on wet floor of lobby.... Arguing that (a) defendants, who had retained services of plaintiff's employer to clean the property, had not breached any duty owed to the plaintiff and (b) that any alleged lack of warning of the wet floors was superfluous given the fact that the plaintiff knew the floors had recently been cleaned and were, therefore, presumably still wet and slippery, achieved excellent result for property owner and management by avoiding trial and settlement.
