[{"_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",6251861,"mediaKeyId","3191442-f48601e76fc4d852469aee74f79ddbdf","parentId",3191442,"title","Appeals court hears challenge to Fairhaven planning board’s denial of subdivision amid Board of Health timing dispute","audioSeconds",1767,"startMs",7732000,"endMs",9499000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3191442-f48601e76fc4d852469aee74f79ddbdf&start=7732&end=9499","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3191442-f48601e76fc4d852469aee74f79ddbdf/thumbnail_7732000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6251861/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-hears-challenge-to-Fairhaven-planning-boards-denial-of-subdivision-amid-Board-of-Health-timing-dispute","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6251861-af0bd8ffd8107965fe47896b3198cc4b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770864926&Signature=n2q72TFgSM5hcynYmFjr7Qqeh3Q1eaZhggbqNMFF7XGrNDYPwUPZSbGv2l6shWfUIVO7J00gFM8P4AlRsmzsixtft-Is0~ziHINvpsLEGWZKfhqwF3eXJgCIQ5XGgJiQJBZzqoipIWSf4Hvyc528l8KPAxbhTphhOTTNhR7BqUE-7uVmD4CR5WG9iCUST53pU8jTkK3etL24OoYedZw3-5waihAgVxTw7ALIrYU~TfPShjcHT9coxqcMnib~Pdy~4iZoaTFoYT6TgNRLwq7ey2BHalGGCHhxLX8b7VhPi3zX6QAaEaMDXfiNz3QmKfclcsfdzzR1J8yZ9ok2ViAJmQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-05T16:32:50.21Z","article","The Appeals Court heard arguments May 5 in a land‑use appeal by Robert Rodriguez challenging the Fairhaven planning board’s denial of a definitive subdivision plan and the Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the town’s boards.

Jonathan Silverstein, representing Rodriguez, told the panel that the planning board closed the public hearing and voted to deny on Jan. 14, 2020, without reviewing the applicant’s engineer’s responses to final peer‑review comments (submitted that same day) and while a scheduled Board of Health meeting to review the plans remained pending. Silverstein argued the Board of Health had repeatedly told the planning board earlier that it had no comment because the property was on public sewer, and he said the planning board’s denial therefore could not properly rest on a later agent letter that the board itself rescinded and that prompted the board-of-health agent’s employment termination. He urged the court to reverse summary judgment and remand for trial so disputed material facts—especially whether the planning board had a reasonable basis to find noncompliance—could be resolved de novo.

Michael Terry, appearing for the town, said Rodriguez bore the burden to show full compliance with applicable bylaws and regulations and to secure Board of Health approval. Terry said the planning board’s decision cited multiple, substantial problems—wetlands, steep slopes, proximity to a wastewater treatment plant and wind turbines—and that the record contained a peer-review consultant’s comments the planning board reasonably relied on in denying the application. Terry also said the planning board’s regulations permit the board to decline to accept material submitted at the last minute and that, on the record presented, the Superior Court correctly concluded summary judgment was appropriate.

The panel questioned whether the planning board’s closing of the hearing before the Board of Health’s contemporaneous review was procedurally fair, whether the applicant had waived relevant procedural deadlines, and whether the Superior Court erred by treating post‑decision submissions as irrelevant. Counsel disputed whether the applicable zoning or bylaw provisions (including a local wind‑turbine setback provision) were applicable or waiverable. The case was submitted following argument.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Oral Arguments, May 5, 2025, Presiding: Singh, D'Angelo, Hodgens, JJ.","oneSentenceSummary","A developer appealed a summary-judgment affirmance of a planning-board denial, arguing the planning board closed the hearing and denied the application before the Board of Health completed a review and before the board properly considered the applicant’s responses to peer-review comments.","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},6251866,"Appeals court hears dispute over fee allocation and successor-counsel obligations after $800,000 settlement",2041,5666000,7707000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3191442-f48601e76fc4d852469aee74f79ddbdf&start=5666&end=7707","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3191442-f48601e76fc4d852469aee74f79ddbdf/thumbnail_5666000.jpg","/articles/6251866/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-hears-dispute-over-fee-allocation-and-successor-counsel-obligations-after-800000-settlement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6251866-a27d94a8a6f76aa4da48faf472703b52/orig.mp4?Expires=1770864926&Signature=WefuTOQBI4F0GUdPcSLxWSVAdKxnJF7FR~PjEieUn~uryAbHOQlImcFX3HVffUVv6L9IqLaM1tE-kPrjK3gcD53-qN867QZFDUd0QDmhVhkkXZrO6Ya9ZO8hODG31f6h5PK-kljv~6k4pBgY~mHNvWwEChwouXQWP7G7Kky1o-5PaOrnWRgF3D8UxOWA1-jLEjESAhucXWb2mrJzmnBtjtW0OcfjdIryKBWZGexnWQ57Y0Cre9-WUo3yaZEXvlA0hepv9E3YHfEFkTzyqpRTXp1zu3GrLCYUdzSpouUYdTJHheeThn44vkg606oL4GmQKkQo5nDKfZX4e1iMVsiEYQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The panel heard a contested appeal May 5 in which Steven Cass, representing himself, sought relief from a Superior Court ruling that awarded a law firm (Torres, Scammon, Hinks & Day — TSHD) $190,006.34 from settlement escrow after multiple counsel changes and a contested fee allocation.

Cass said he was pressured to waive findings and that successor counsel and prior counsel failed to give him a clear, timely accounting as required by Rule 1.5, leaving him unaware of his actual end-of-case financial obligation. Cass told the court he expected to owe successor counsel 25% and a prior lien of $45,000 and that succeeding negotiations and counsel changes produced inconsistent arrangements that ultimately reduced his recovery and created attorney‑fee disputes. He described a series of events he said cost him his career and finances and asked the panel to limit prior counsel’s recovery and to remand for detailed findings.

Benjamin Hinks, representing TSHD, urged the court to affirm the trial judge’s factual findings and the award. Hinks argued the trial record supported finding that TSHD rendered substantial, beneficial work, that withdrawal was justified by conflict concerns, and that the firm’s fair-value award was supported by documentary evidence, testimony (including that successor counsel found the inherited work product helpful), and the parties’ negotiations. Hinks also argued that any technical Rule 1.5 disclosure lapse did not warrant the draconian remedy of denying the firm’s fee or forcing a full reallocation.

Counsel debated the operation and remedial scope of Rule 1.5, the standards for fair-value recovery or quantum meruit after withdrawal, and whether technical noncompliance (such as not providing an itemized accounting within 20 days) should lead to forfeiture of a fee. The record shows an $800,000 settlement, a TSHD claim to $190,006.34 held in escrow, an Adler Pollock & Sheehan (APS) payment of $150,000, and multiple counsel agreements. The panel took the matter under submission after argument.","A self-represented litigant and law firms argued May 5 over whether withdrawing counsel and failures to provide a 20‑day post-termination accounting justify reducing attorneys’ fees or remanding to the trial court for factfinding after an $800,000 settlement.",{"_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},6251871,"Appeals court considers whether defective Rule 20 verdict slip and mixed expert evidence require new trial in neighbor water dispute",1880,3770000,5650000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3191442-f48601e76fc4d852469aee74f79ddbdf&start=3770&end=5650","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3191442-f48601e76fc4d852469aee74f79ddbdf/thumbnail_3770000.jpg","/articles/6251871/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-considers-whether-defective-Rule-20-verdict-slip-and-mixed-expert-evidence-require-new-trial-in-neighbor-water-dispute","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6251871-ea9b793bf37abe112c99858d47df89ff/orig.mp4?Expires=1770864926&Signature=DltV7CICJnk6XybVA7~esiACc6QS4v0xljHT9v4f9O3Jk~b3gOFXhSNqTnL6arKlRAcgUP8l1XEbSYDYSfxdUWebcD7Mc5B8vFc6K7uqmIXRIDtBcouOqJ0PkezXUPMIcyYXvah5Nno0I0KKL9erjsUQqBLoCsMiDTXwP738opKEzXjyqdvHyFru1rOnUFhD9FyvjEJvxxoupHg3wYvnL-RdIBp~Xh92O3yB5-uC6Pu6yDgZakPW8wFk1qguezDdpWiJtC3eDOHeyqbzRUuPZi5ljSOiZsz27D8hVl7Rm3gzFoTVQQSNYdcS-c09I8q9W35jJkJ5G1WHYgLv39puoA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Appeals Court considered an appeal from a Superior Court judgment awarding damages to Rita Battles after the court found that neighbors Rita Tam and Catherine Mooy diverted stormwater onto Battles’ property, causing landscaping damage.

Julie Berry, representing the appellants Tam and Mooy, argued the trial judge used a defective Rule 20 special verdict slip that omitted required elements and therefore left the appellate court unable to determine the factual basis for findings of trespass and nuisance. Berry told the panel that the parties had agreed an amended form would be used, but that the revised slip still lacked interrogatories or findings tied to each legal element as Rule 20 requires; she asked the court to remand for proper findings or a new trial.

Rita Battles’ counsel, David Conti, defended the sufficiency of the record, pointing to undisputed facts that the Tam property sits substantially downhill from Battles’ property, that the Tam parties admitted placing boards to divert water, and that Battles produced an estimate from Alex’s Landscaping, which the judge awarded in the amount of $22,750 to reseed and repair yard damage. Conti also emphasized testimony from a drainage expert (Ronald Tabari) and photos and videos the judge could credit in finding an unreasonable diversion that caused the damage.

The appeals panel questioned whether the parties’ agreement to use a simplified verdict form waived Rule 20’s minimum requirement that elements be separately addressed, and whether a party can accept an agreed form and later challenge it on appeal. Counsel debated whether the judge’s discretionary decision to rely on the agreed slip is reviewable without instructing a remand for fuller findings. The court also examined the record for competing expert testimony about whether the water flow was a natural sheet flow from Blue Hills or an unnatural concentrated flow caused or worsened by the defendants’ diversion efforts.

After argument the panel took the case under submission. The record includes invoices and estimates, expert statements about flow patterns, town citations about fence disrepair, and testimony about when boards were installed and later removed.","The panel heard May 5 arguments over a Superior Court judgment awarding damages for trespass and nuisance after a neighbor placed boards and sandbags to divert water; the appellants say the special verdict form (Rule 20) was defective and the record does not support the findings.",{"_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},6251876,"Appeals court weighs whether Najjar error voids guilty plea in homicide case",1585,1916000,3501000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3191442-f48601e76fc4d852469aee74f79ddbdf&start=1916&end=3501","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3191442-f48601e76fc4d852469aee74f79ddbdf/thumbnail_1916000.jpg","/articles/6251876/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-weighs-whether-Najjar-error-voids-guilty-plea-in-homicide-case","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6251876-b9a43278e37e02f1275588d5de0bd839/orig.mp4?Expires=1770864926&Signature=ItFUgDFbQh75WTzI9mEq1zc4FdMHGV5dSv26fh3uHYkwbF3Hh9hgjn5gNCggftYfExs-GieHgIRQ58pla0TzEutNyCAUQ1lDgiWdvR1wVQrXp9izFOrolExKa7hWnYU04zIuz4tVLvAjL4tHAaNZpmTZdumnMsS~5nWG-kF0jcXldq4Al1e0SLAVs0y30mWEKgnMzFtAmRUCfoR1stVyoDXXOtAXV6a~p86l5hZPev5~lu6NGPop9yrUXkXwTw1O4-2MY5zizJEnDkv0myVKD92cD-xokhiETk7eyn6FM8Yx-I9VdbtMlKimcQgpptxfUgdOY4vRomIYL~fcpuGtuA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","An Appeals Court panel heard arguments on May 5 over whether a guilty plea should be withdrawn because the defendant was allegedly given incorrect advice about parole eligibility and the effect of “good time” credit. Suzanne Renaud, representing the appellant David Delbertis, urged the panel to follow Najjar, which the defense said treats certain misinformation about mandatory-minimum consequences as voiding a plea.

Renaud told the court the key question is whether plea counsel and the record left the defendant with a reasonable and incorrect belief that the parole-eligibility date could be reduced by good-time credits; she argued the trial record and affidavits show that misinformation and asked the court to remand for relief. Renaud said Najjar treats misinformation about mandatory, non‑reducible consequences as a special class that can render a plea unknowing even without a full prejudice analysis.

Justices pressed counsel about procedural posture and the weight to give competing affidavits. The panel asked how the court should treat affidavits accepting the trial record as true and whether a later assertion that a defendant would have pleaded differently required an evidentiary hearing. Renaud argued that Najjar’s line of cases requires less probing on prejudice when misinformation concerns a mandatory minimum that cannot be reduced by good time or parole.

Laurie Levinson, for the Commonwealth, said the plea colloquy and the judge’s on‑the‑record admonitions cured any misimpression. Levinson argued that parole and good-time are contingent consequences, historically not required to be explained in full in plea colloquies, and that Najjar’s limited rule should not be read to require vacatur here. She told the panel that the defendant was repeatedly warned during the colloquy that he “may not get out within your lifetime,” and that the record did not show the defendant knowingly relied on erroneous advice to his prejudice.

The justices questioned both sides about the scope of Najjar, whether the alleged misinformation was material and whether an evidentiary remand was necessary to resolve disputed factual assertions in competing affidavits. The panel took the case under submission after argument; no decision was announced from the bench.

The argument turned on whether the misinformation here (about parole eligibility/good time) falls within Najjar’s protected class of direct consequences and whether affidavits in the record should be credited without an evidentiary hearing.","Counsel and the Commonwealth clashed May 5 before an appeals panel over whether a defendant’s erroneous advice about parole eligibility or “good time” requires vacation of a guilty plea under Najjar and related precedent.",{"_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},6251881,"Appeals court hears challenge to denial of suppression order in stop the defense says was racially motivated",905,322000,1227000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3191442-f48601e76fc4d852469aee74f79ddbdf&start=322&end=1227","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3191442-f48601e76fc4d852469aee74f79ddbdf/thumbnail_322000.jpg","/articles/6251881/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-hears-challenge-to-denial-of-suppression-order-in-stop-the-defense-says-was-racially-motivated","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6251881-b8e71f8826005dea24b5296867b1ef85/orig.mp4?Expires=1770864926&Signature=C22vH62LhdSNpiDTG1bKCmQjAcxN~NH9ZuMbV1776jiJJG8mHwEgNpPW55Z5K1pNdGHMBkKL50CjwCfD~Q-FHGbCB58I4lUcNuJT1Jj5JDeVM8Ih7Bmqzm~Ly2S4SkRcBMqe~tl4qXh35h2r6B3cOoY6D52-DnwklmRcYNPCh5gADz2lofiGx4rRV1oV2uSUz2SuTo3GzabNd-o~IROXhQgqSPC0ZbPx9KWri8kKxKhdtFHuy3JN9eGH3mJZatxqCZlyNM2OmM4AxJzQ0pVzbHag~ak6yG0QvGOMhXxMXG~ffxUX5B3rikWSOLYLW2BGyPX0Yycawaca9jk7DzfwiQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A three-justice panel of the Appeals Court heard oral argument May 5 in Commonwealth v. Tom, in which the appellant asked the court to reverse a trial judge’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence from a traffic stop the defense says was motivated in part by race.

The appellant, represented by Rebecca Kiley, told the panel that two separate statistical analyses showed Officer Monzon issued traffic citations to Black drivers at a rate far above local benchmarks and the neighborhood adult population, and that the totality of the circumstances corroborated a reasonable inference of racially motivated policing. Kiley told the court, “Mr. Tom is a Black man who presented two distinct and statistically significant analyses that both showed that he was likely stopped by Boston police because of his race.”

Kiley emphasized that one internal benchmark compared stops by Officer Monzon to other Area B3 officers and found 83.1% of Monzon’s citations went to Black drivers versus 69.6% for other B3 officers, a difference her expert said had a probability of occurring at random of about 3 in 1,000. Comparing Monzon’s stops to the adult population of Area B3 (65.6% Black) produced an even lower random-probability estimate (about 1 in 1,000), she said. Kiley argued the Commonwealth failed to rebut that statistical showing and that the judge’s short totality-of-the-circumstances paragraph (the addendum 47 paragraph cited in the record) relied on reasoning in conflict with Commonwealth v. Long and related precedent.

The assistant district attorney, Brynn Morris, told the panel the Commonwealth had met its rebuttal burden through five factors: that officers were patrolling for traffic violations, that the officer actually observed a violation, that the stop reflected the officer’s customary race-neutral practice, the seriousness of the offense, and the officers’ post-stop restraint in not arresting the defendant after finding the license was suspended. Morris argued those elements, taken together, rebutted the inference the defense claimed the statistics established.

Justices on the panel questioned the parties on several factual points the judge cited below, including whether Officer Monzon could have observed the driver’s race while passing in the opposite direction, whether windows were tinted, why the officer reportedly made a U-turn before initiating the stop, and why the officers elected to tow the vehicle when a family member later arrived. The justices also explored the interplay between statistical evidence and the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, including whether hypotheticals raised by the Commonwealth would constitute a sufficient rebuttal absent direct accounting for missing variables.

The appellant asked the court to reverse the suppression denial, vacate the judgment of guilt, and order judgment for the defendant; the Commonwealth asked the panel to affirm the trial judge’s decision. The panel took the case under submission after argument.

The arguments turned on the legal standard for when a statistical showing combined with contextual evidence raises a reasonable inference of racial profiling and on whether the Commonwealth’s factual proffer at the suppression hearing was a sufficient rebuttal under Long, Stroman, and related decisions.","On May 5, 2025, an appeals panel heard arguments in Commonwealth v. Tom over whether evidence from a traffic stop should have been suppressed after the trial court rejected statistical and totality-of-the-circumstances evidence that the stop was racially motivated.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Appeals court hears challenge to Fairhaven planning board’s denial of subdivision amid Board of Health timing dispute

Appeals court hears dispute over fee allocation and successor-counsel obligations after $800,000 settlement

Appeals court considers whether defective Rule 20 verdict slip and mixed expert evidence require new trial in neighbor water dispute

Appeals court weighs whether Najjar error voids guilty plea in homicide case

Appeals court hears challenge to denial of suppression order in stop the defense says was racially motivated