JIANGHE NIU v. BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY & Another. ( 2024 )

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
24-P-175
JIANGHE NIU
vs.
BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY & another.1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The plaintiff landlord appeals from a decision by a judge
of the Housing Court dismissing her case against the defendant
housing authority (BHA or defendant) for withholding payments
under the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8).
We affirm.
The plaintiff owns a multifamily building in Dorchester;
this case arose from her rental of a unit (in April 2013) to a
tenant who possessed a Section 8 housing voucher administered
through the BHA. The BHA-authorized model lease provided for
1Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD
did not appear in the proceedings below nor has it participated
in this appeal. The trial court judge noted that it is unclear
whether HUD was ever served. The dismissal of the plaintiff's
action disposed of any claim she may have had against HUD.
inspection by the BHA and required that the plaintiff maintain
and repair the property.
The disagreement at the heart of this lawsuit began with
the BHA's February 2018 annual inspection. This inspection
revealed seventeen violations of "housing quality standards."
Five additional re-inspections (in March, April, August,
September, and October) revealed ongoing and new violations.
After the April inspection the BHA issued a stop payment notice.
At the end of October, the BHA sent the plaintiff a termination
notice.
The plaintiff sued to recover the Section 8 rent subsidy
payments that the defendant withheld after the April notice
issued. After a trial, the judge allowed the defendant's motion
for a directed verdict (treating it as a motion for involuntary
dismissal) and dismissed the plaintiff's action with prejudice.
The pro se plaintiff's arguments are presented inadequately
for appellate review. While we are not insensitive to the
challenges of proceeding pro se, pro se litigants are bound by
the same rules and requirements as represented parties and are
responsible for presenting the materials necessary to permit
meaningful appellate review. See Mass. R. A. P. 18, as
appearing in 481 Mass. 1637 (2019); see also Brossard v. West
Roxbury Div. of the Dist. Court Dep't, 417 Mass. 183, 184
(1994). The plaintiff failed to meet this standard. Instead,
2
she made arguments without support to any case law and without
reference to (or identification of) the standard of review. See
Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (9) (A), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1628(2019)("appellate court need not pass upon questions or issues
not argued in the brief"); Gaffney v. Contributory Retirement
Appeal Bd., 423 Mass. 1, 6 n.4 (1996) (conclusory statements in
brief do not rise to level of appellate argument); Zora v. State
Ethics Comm'n, 415 Mass. 640, 642 n.3 (1993). She also failed
to provide us with citations to the record and with pertinent
portions of the trial record, particularly the trial
transcripts. See Kellogg v. Board of Registration in Med., 461
Mass. 1001, 1003 (2011) (insufficient basis for appellate
consideration where appellant "failed to support his claims of
error with sufficient legal argument . . . and fail[ed] to cite
to sufficient supporting authority"); Everett v. 357 Corp., 453
Mass. 585, 604 n.26 (2009).
We conclude that there is no reason to disturb the Housing
Court judge's detailed and careful findings of fact and rulings
of law. The plaintiff has put forward no argument or evidence
that would lead us to conclude that "anywhere in the evidence,
from whatever source derived, any combination of circumstances
could be found from which a reasonable inference could be drawn
in favor of the plaintiff." Raunela v. Hertz Corp., 361 Mass.
3
341, 343 (1972), quoting Kelly v. Railway Exp. Agency, Inc., 315
Mass. 301, 302 (1943).
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Meade,
Hershfang & Toone, JJ.2),
Clerk
Entered: October 24, 2024.
2 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
4