[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6392013,"mediaKeyId","2110596-62ba4e5354577f75a28062f6b9a721ef","parentId",2110596,"title","Appeals court hears abuse-of-process and zoning dispute over Pease Cottage relocation","audioSeconds",1918,"startMs",374000,"endMs",2292000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2110596-62ba4e5354577f75a28062f6b9a721ef&start=374&end=2292","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2110596-62ba4e5354577f75a28062f6b9a721ef/thumbnail_374000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6392013/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-hears-abuse-of-process-and-zoning-dispute-over-Pease-Cottage-relocation","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6392013-241063bba8617d76e21efe2c5e40c8d2/orig.mp4?Expires=1775398365&Signature=C2rZV6VLbmD8ZCUH5XIwB358kLRqhE7sPGKg7v1W1sVXnAxdJS3oujdeIg1EPXEC5KSiLpLrvegaqf2biCV54DPMpc5iTiADftDZvuL118HM4yVzNTnjU~8LgLeG9cGo~uM5CrY0wPypgLGngLe6Krl1~65LnUlXg6oZV4pt8RTOPDmBHXulKvdsKNlIkg2aoWN7QP~kzIevF0hRh29AOTqS8RhzghpOpRq6SVKyiR6iagC-WIhIy5~b83~U1q~tiIz87gga~GfKpHcx3cPcAuXJWBWuqSrB~Je2305l8QsuC3nBJL6gKa6IMyzn9ACtLiU3E6oLls~Aevs2BDyAeg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-01-14T18:16:41Z","article","The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard argument Wednesday in 2024P267, Lynn Allegart v. members of the Edgartown Zoning Board of Appeals and Harborview Owner LLC, over an appeal from denial of an anti‑SLAPP (abuse‑of‑process) motion and related counterclaims tied to a dispute about screening and the relocation of a structure called the Pease Cottage.

The case arises from Allegart’s zoning appeal and other challenges she has filed over several years against the Harborview’s development steps. At oral argument, Dan Larkosh, counsel for Allegart, told the panel that “this is an appeal from the denial of a slap suit motion to dismiss,” and said the record shows his client’s petitioning activity is protected and that prior rulings supported the viability of her earlier claims.

The appeal centers on whether the Harborview carried its burden to show Allegart’s petitioning activity “is devoid of any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law,” a standard Larkosh described as the proper test once petitioning activity is established. Larkosh argued the principal, strongest claim is the zoning appeal seeking protection of screening and privacy, and he said the complaint alleges the removal and inadequate replacement of screening and the relocation of the Pease Cottage, which his client says now gives balconies a clearer view of her property.

Kevin O’Flaherty, representing Harborview Owner LLC, countered that Allegart lacks standing for the zoning claim and that zoning does not protect a generalized privacy interest. O’Flaherty told the court that “privacy … is not protected under zoning” and said the Pease Cottage “complies in every respect with zoning” and is not too tall or too large. He also emphasized procedural posture: Harborview filed counterclaims in answer to preserve abuse‑of‑process and related claims while pursuing discovery and summary judgment in the trial court.

The parties disputed whether the trial court properly took a holistic view of filings and supporting affidavits in resolving the anti‑SLAPP motion and whether the counterclaims were properly dismissed under the governing anti‑SLAPP standards. Counsel debated applicability of appellate precedents the parties cited, including decisions identified in the record as Hidalgo and Bristol, and whether a trial court may evaluate affidavits and documentary evidence in deciding an anti‑SLAPP motion in this posture.

The justices questioned whether Harborview’s counterclaims targeted only Allegart’s zoning appeal or were aimed at a broader pattern of litigation, and they pressed counsel on the legal standards governing standing, the sufficiency of allegations in each of the complaint’s counts, and the appropriate timing for bringing abuse‑of‑process claims. The court’s decision will resolve whether the trial court erred in denying dismissal of the counterclaims and whether Allegart’s petitioning activity is protected as a matter of law.

The argument concluded after presentations by both sides; the court did not announce a ruling from the bench.

Background details from the record cited at argument: Allegart supported earlier incarnations of the Pease Cottage approvals in 2008 and 2018, the record includes photographs and letters discussing screening, and parties dispute whether a landscaping plan required by earlier decisions was implemented. The complaint alleges removal of mature screening and replacement with younger arborvitae, and that relocation of the cottage opened a sight line to Allegart’s house.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Oral Arguments, January 14, 2025, Grant, Brennan, Toone, JJ. presiding","oneSentenceSummary","The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard argument Wednesday in Lynn Allegart’s appeal from the denial of an anti‑SLAPP motion after multiple related zoning and contract disputes involving the Harborview’s planned Pease Cottage and exterior screening.","taxTitle","Judicial - Appeals Court Oral Arguments, Judicial, Massachusetts","taxId",66294,"location","Massachusetts","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6391995,"Labor board ruling on Essex North Shore Tech’s summer schedule upheld in appeals court argument",980,8430000,9410000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2110596-62ba4e5354577f75a28062f6b9a721ef&start=8430&end=9410","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2110596-62ba4e5354577f75a28062f6b9a721ef/thumbnail_8430000.jpg","/articles/6391995/Massachusetts/Labor-board-ruling-on-Essex-North-Shore-Techs-summer-schedule-upheld-in-appeals-court-argument","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6391995-9d8ed208d4c10ec1318d162d9aaad529/orig.mp4?Expires=1775398365&Signature=ShxetLG4vsxA8kLClA5trOxcmGhhJLGZ7Ke6-oW9wlTxja3GcvqS6TstJsiKFDP7aMu90IGtdSQO7Te~7W7cxuLOcfSJn9f9riDuB-gLW9Kd28JnjNNxHeekwJiy42elrwJI4XVqoYF6~H3OqjhiuCqfSn~ABdaLfVz2yEII-MuTLaszJ1yAGGMXtr2vvH3UCooOHQUdFMXSYO0xl3bg1aV0BFlUWuGXWD5b9cS2E780H5ejdlT~GYMy361cONgN1a1BmbsKliQ-9-~7ncUbq25n6cd~k3~SJ8ahuBjaOPoYxdZOW9AYFrzkEtNRpTTR02HYuxph~6mdC8BTJWzfQQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Appeals Court heard argument in 2023P1399, Essex North Shore Agricultural and Technical School District v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (CERB) and AFSCME Council 93/Unit (the union), over a CERB finding that the district violated Chapter 150E by unilaterally changing employee schedules during summer 2020 without completing required bargaining over the decision’s effects.

Brett Sebag, counsel for Essex North Shore, argued the district had contractual authority under Article 5 of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement to modify employees’ work years and schedules and that the district’s decision to close buildings on Fridays (moving many employees to a Monday‑through‑Thursday schedule) fell within management’s level‑of‑service prerogative. Sebag emphasized that the contract language and management‑rights clauses permitted the district to seek scheduling adjustments and that the district had offered notice and some concessions on implementation dates.

CERB counsel and union counsel disputed that interpretation. CERB argued the district failed to show a clear and unmistakable waiver in the contract; CERB said ambiguous contract language cannot be read as an affirmative waiver of mandatory bargaining rights without bargaining history or specific evidence the parties contemplated furloughs as part of the work‑year language. The union (AFSCME Council 93) described a factual record of compressed timelines, limited bargaining sessions, and members facing loss of summer pay if compelled to use accrued leave or accept unpaid Fridays.

The panel questioned both sides about how impasse is established and whether the union’s emails that urged bargaining and later said “we do not anticipate changes until we complete impact bargaining” indicated waiver by inaction. CERB urged deference on its factual impasse and waiver findings, saying determinations of fact‑intensive bargaining history and impasse deserve agency expertise and appellate deference. The district urged that its managerial decision on level of services is not a bargaining subject and that the union’s response did not preserve a claim of continuing bargaining entitlement.

The court did not issue a ruling from the bench. The dispute turns on contract construction (Article 5 work‑day/work‑year language), whether the district’s conduct constituted an implementable managerial decision pending impact bargaining, and whether CERB reasonably found a prohibited unilateral change.","The court heard arguments over whether Essex North Shore Agricultural & Technical School District unlawfully changed employee hours during summer 2020 without impact bargaining; central issues included alleged waiver by contract, whether parties reached impasse, and managerial prerogative to set levels of service.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6391998,"Court hears disability‑discrimination appeal over honorary status and alleged failure to accommodate",969,6681000,7650000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2110596-62ba4e5354577f75a28062f6b9a721ef&start=6681&end=7650","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2110596-62ba4e5354577f75a28062f6b9a721ef/thumbnail_6681000.jpg","/articles/6391998/Massachusetts/Court-hears-disabilitydiscrimination-appeal-over-honorary-status-and-alleged-failure-to-accommodate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6391998-099bf9a9fa3fb19c2c0ffdd4bb5408a8/orig.mp4?Expires=1775398365&Signature=j7bE83oR~DTbTnyWmJ9l2Vgt4WZihk4yI4eFGNLdbCrfxEg6Lo4QHhbpgCbnCkWc0E~WSh0hdbWU8w6DXLlSpEQE4EYUL4aY4xDxHwDg9-THkL559f0E3VIQGORpfac7yW3tOyy-SWSo4enulX7dNUB9kB-VeNmUgqtcrQ0qci1Dtqp1oxhjLlLP6ZbbmrPxBzZTm0EqoDSaYQ0n39LowsArWqt8EGNMiXm0HZmxectxz0KE9RJH-ognpk0ZK6lyG6ApcIKtZ~QzDsfqRn58ZGdvY4yekFpG3JUFP3spvOTFrPAuBp5Gm25o3GiL2hpjBgNq~e79QN9jcrFTrzJlpA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Appeals Court heard argument in 2024P421, Stephen B. Korn, M.D. v. Brigham and Women’s Hospital and others, over whether summary judgment was appropriate on disability‑discrimination, failure‑to‑accommodate and related common‑law claims. The appeal raises two principal issues: (1) whether Korn remained an “employee” after moving to disability status and receiving an honorary appointment but continued to receive employer‑paid health insurance and retirement contributions, and (2) whether portions of his claims are time‑barred.

Counsel for Dr. Korn, Dana Kernhan, said a reasonable factfinder could determine Korn remained an employee because he continued to receive some employer‑provided benefits, maintained office access, teaching and supervisory responsibilities, and had research and grant activity. Kernhan argued that those nonclinical activities were part of his ongoing obligations and that the trial court erred by treating the record as too thin to generate a genuine dispute of material fact.

Toby Bright, representing Brigham and Women’s and Partners Healthcare, replied that Korn’s status after 2011 was analogous to an emeritus or honorary affiliation rather than an employment relationship: Bright said Korn received disability payments from an insurer, retained honorific status, and was not compensated in exchange for required work. Bright argued the “quid pro quo” of employment — payment in exchange for services — was absent and that summary judgment dismissal was therefore correct.

The panel questioned counsel about record evidence on what Korn actually did after 2011 (teaching, supervising, grant activity), how the hospital treated the change in status administratively, and when Korn knew or reasonably should have known of the alleged unlawful conduct for purposes of the statute of limitations. Korn’s counsel argued some evidentiary details were not known until discovery, and that the hospital’s retention of honors, keycard access and benefits could sustain an employee‑status finding.

Both sides also debated continuing‑violation doctrine and whether Korn’s later removal of honorary affiliation bears a legal connection to earlier failure‑to‑accommodate allegations. The trial court’s grant of summary judgment rested on findings about notice and the discrete nature of failure‑to‑accommodate claims; Korn urged a different factual view. The court did not announce a decision at argument.

The appeal raises factual questions about institutional handling of long‑term disability, distinctions between honorary affiliation and employment, and the appropriate accrual date for discrimination claims.","Stephen Korn appealed denial of factual disputes at summary judgment on disability‑discrimination and related claims against Brigham and Women’s Hospital, centering on whether Korn remained an employee after shifting to disability and honorary status and whether statute of limitations bars parts of his claims.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6392003,"Appeals court weighs tax reach over sale of startup stock by nonresident founder",1857,4815000,6672000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2110596-62ba4e5354577f75a28062f6b9a721ef&start=4815&end=6672","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2110596-62ba4e5354577f75a28062f6b9a721ef/thumbnail_4815000.jpg","/articles/6392003/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-weighs-tax-reach-over-sale-of-startup-stock-by-nonresident-founder","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6392003-1ac1b32ccad1bb96ed0f80511eb9c359/orig.mp4?Expires=1775398365&Signature=aakqi-pDUGqyWqbhc-CnFKoarxrxPMvCQrMImy3d-MVwEFFCIPovoB62jQ3DkFZ7z1IZd~Ek5Gt9nprKwAEYCmpOcwBERdDF7xwnFLAih-Aa5dK9h-imlye27CdzyUThbx3Bq1txyWgkk9rXTaX0LGPmpIMUTN~b0mA1TbX2E432zQP-~ya~qI5xFAO3rc2-Sac2RwYutR5UEkNQ0uFP6teYise-RvFiPWJslRCbx-Lt5kHVKJoGJa3PDpoeCmsaKJd33uuPmlFGh6xZmK9DYg01AvYoieCRzW2xDlxIbr~7Hc0LPlhscqj6Pw-TAVpuj5WNwFXvFBcvqKM2UnYhKQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Appeals Court heard argument in 2024P109, Craig H. Welch and another v. Commissioner of Revenue, over whether a nonresident’s gain on the sale of stock in a Massachusetts company is taxable in the Commonwealth. The central legal question is whether the gain was “effectively connected” with the taxpayer’s trade or business in Massachusetts or was compensatory in nature, bringing it within the statutory sourcing rule in G.L. c. 62, § 5(a).

Counsel for the appellants, Michael Bowen, said Mr. Welch received the stock as part of forming AcadiaSoft in 2005 and later sold the shares as a nonresident in 2015. Bowen emphasized that the gain was reported as long‑term capital gain for federal purposes and argued that the commissioner’s regulation (830 CMR 62.5A(13)(c)(8)) generally treats such federally characterized capital gain from sale of C‑ or S‑corporation shares as non‑Massachusetts source income unless anti‑abuse or compensation grounds apply.

Celine Dela Foscott Condon, arguing for the Department of Revenue, said the statutory amendment that expanded Massachusetts‑source income to include “gain from the sale of a business or an interest in a business” and the accompanying regulation permit taxation where the gain is related to the taxpayer’s compensation or to income effectively connected to a trade or business conducted in Massachusetts. The department urged deference to the Appellate Tax Board’s factual findings that tied Welch’s long involvement in the company — including extensive management, personnel and financing work — to the realization of the capital gain.

Justices questioned whether the issue is principally factual (extent of Welch’s involvement) or legal (whether the statute and regulation impose taxation absent an anti‑abuse showing). Counsel debated the weight to be given to the federal characterization of gain as long‑term capital gain, the relevance of the 2005 stock grant timing, and whether subsequent agreements (for example, investor provisions tying stock to continued work) alter the tax treatment.

The court pressed on broader policy implications: counsel for the taxpayer warned that a broad reading could chill entrepreneurship and cross‑border investment, while the department said the statutory language and regulation were enacted to capture certain gains connected to Massachusetts business activities. The court reserved decision.

The appeal tests the intersection of state sourcing rules, administrative regulation, and how courts treat long‑term founders’ equity that appreciates because of the founder’s sustained work in‑state.","The court considered whether capital gain from sale of stock in AcadiaSoft by Craig Welch, who left Massachusetts before sale, is taxable to Massachusetts under the expanded definition of Massachusetts‑source income in G.L. c. 62, § 5(a) and related Department of Revenue regulation.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6392008,"Appeals court reviews arbitration award in Griffin–Mears easement dispute",1578,2347000,3925000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2110596-62ba4e5354577f75a28062f6b9a721ef&start=2347&end=3925","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2110596-62ba4e5354577f75a28062f6b9a721ef/thumbnail_2347000.jpg","/articles/6392008/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-reviews-arbitration-award-in-GriffinMears-easement-dispute","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6392008-52734f49919ad814cefb68713a6f1e92/orig.mp4?Expires=1775398365&Signature=RO9lHkzi0IO~IMcsc9v6LrA8QzzwQWSBfqMnjuycQvKAcD-gPFpfJm02Xdv5hcBWb8PJikOSr~eiRlwg6RXEy6nlsgHwwvPoVv10Rf4iX3QX6kiPtdzmJvW-EPRejPH3RU74lVnyZy~5JuGR3V8G5VBbHT21w1p0pVQaRXEIC0OqGOwuGln7hyxWGxJcEGyiihQ5JNIyAuxuUme6IMCmCIygZ6PhZytO04-xXLpvjGc6lVVLtQnf~7whDfan8hZHbl9UKyCagiGQn~~drDqW2y8b7aHh6BIhrjtG93xzJtVMYeGZ2~kFsK5EksZv2kgKCFvZDWMrRsjDgsAbBP6XPg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard oral argument in 2024P96, Dana R. Griffin et al. v. Eric L. Mears, addressing whether a private arbitrator exceeded his authority and whether the arbitration award should be vacated for evident partiality. The dispute concerns the location, dimensions and uses of a recorded easement and an amendment of easement that the parties negotiated and recorded.

M. Erwin Walters, arguing for Eric Mears, asked the court to vacate the arbitral award on multiple grounds, contending the arbitrator improperly ignored the plain language of the amendment that allows Mears (owner of Lot B in the papers) certain uses “subject to the following” conditions and therefore conferred obligations not in the written settlement. Walters argued the arbitrator effectively rewrote the agreement, imposing an implied duty of unrestricted access and obligations to regrade or alter the physical easement area that the parties did not agree to.

Counsel for the Griffins, James Tacoulis, defended the award, saying the arbitrator resolved disputed factual questions about whether the easement, as surveyed and constructed, provided usable access and whether Mears’s parking and relocation of the entrance interfered with Griffin access. Tacoulis urged deference to the arbitrator’s factual findings and contended the reference to arbitration was proper because the settlement agreement expressly submitted disputes about the easement to arbitration.

Argument addressed several recurring themes: whether the amendment’s language was unambiguous and therefore susceptible to a plain‑meaning reading; whether the arbitrator improperly expanded the parties’ rights by relying on a covenant of good faith and fair dealing to require remedial work; and whether there was evidence of evident partiality or bias. Walters argued the arbitrator “ignored words” in the amendment and substituted his own access‑first interpretive lens; Tacoulis answered that the arbitrator’s interpretation fell within the scope of the agreed reference and that the arbitrator conducted a two‑day evidentiary hearing that included surveys, photographs and witness testimony.

The justices questioned counsel about the scope of review under G. L. c. 251, § 12 (statutory vacatur standards), addressing issues of arbitrability, whether the arbitrator exceeded the four corners of the contract, and how to apply the limited judicial review standard where an arbitrator’s findings rest on factual determinations. The court did not announce a decision at argument.

The arbitration award ordered remedial steps to restore access in part and found violations including overnight parking and interference with access; the appellants argue those remedies and findings exceed what a recorded amendment and settlement permit. The appeals court will determine whether the award must be confirmed or vacated.","The Appeals Court considered whether an arbitrator exceeded his authority and whether evident partiality required vacating an arbitration award resolving an easement dispute between Dana Griffin and Eric Mears.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Appeals court hears abuse-of-process and zoning dispute over Pease Cottage relocation

Labor board ruling on Essex North Shore Tech’s summer schedule upheld in appeals court argument

Court hears disability‑discrimination appeal over honorary status and alleged failure to accommodate

Appeals court weighs tax reach over sale of startup stock by nonresident founder

Appeals court reviews arbitration award in Griffin–Mears easement dispute