MOHAMMED AKBARIAN, Trustee v. MUHAMMAD M. ABDELHALIEM. ( 2023 )

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
22-P-724
MOHAMMED AKBARIAN, trustee, 1
vs.
MUHAMMAD M. ABDELHALIEM.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
In December 2019, Mohammed Akbarian, as trustee of the Pine
Banks Trust (landlord), filed a summary process complaint in the
Housing Court against Muhammad M. Abdelhaliem (tenant). The
complaint alleged, among other things, that the tenant failed to
vacate after receiving a thirty-day notice to quit. The tenant
filed an answer and raised defenses and counterclaims of
defective notice, retaliation, discrimination, violation of the
implied warranty of habitability, breach of quiet enjoyment,
violation of the Consumer Protection Act, negligence, and
emotional distress. Following a bench trial that concluded on
December 13, 2021, the court entered judgment for the landlord
1 Of the Pine Banks Trust.
for possession and on all of the defendant's counterclaims. We
affirm.
Based on the tenant's brief and our review of the papers,
it is unclear in what way the tenant argues that the Housing
Court judge erred. The tenant did not include a trial
transcript, and therefore it is impossible to conclude that any
of the judge's decisions regarding the evidence or his findings
of facts were in error. See, e.g., M.M. v. D.A., 79 Mass. App.
Ct. 197, 207 (2011).
The tenant's arguments largely reiterate his claims before
the Housing Court, which, after careful review, the judge found
did not present a defense to possession by the plaintiff. To
overturn the judge's findings or rulings, we must conclude that
the judge made clearly erroneous factual findings or reached an
incorrect conclusion of law. See, e.g., United States Bank
Nat'l Ass'n v. Schumacher, 467 Mass. 421, 427(2014). On the
record provided to us, we cannot determine whether the judge's
findings were unsupported or that they formed a basis for an
incorrect conclusion of law.
To the extent the tenant also argues that the judge
improperly denied his motion to amend his pleadings, we find no
merit to his argument. The standard of review is whether the
judge abused his discretion in denying the motion. See, e.g.,
Manfrates v. Lawrence Plaza Ltd. Partnership, 41 Mass. App. Ct.
2
409, 413-415 (1996). His motion to amend the complaint, which
included six new Federal claims and further facts, damages, and
exhibits, was untimely and unduly prejudicial. See, e.g.,
Castellucci v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 372 Mass. 288,
289-291 (1977).
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Meade,
Hershfang & D'Angelo, JJ. 2),
Clerk
Entered: October 13, 2023.
2 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
3