Source: http://masscases.com/cases/app/5/5massappct893.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 11:05:12+00:00

Document:
The defendant, citing one case of no particular relevance to his appeal, challenges the constitutionality of G. L. c. 152, Section 25C, under which he, as treasurer of a corporation which failed to provide for payment of workmen's compensation to its employees, was prosecuted and fined. See Employers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Merrimac Mills Co., 325 Mass. 676 , 679 (1950). That section is not vague or ambiguous in any respect identified by the defendant (compare G. L. c. 149, Section 148, fourth and sixth pars.; G. L. c. 151A, Section 47); nor is the complaint, which tracks the statutory language. The appeal is utterly without merit, and, if this were a civil case, we should not hesitate to assess double costs and counsel fees.
ROSE CAPODILUPO, trustee, vs. JOSEPH PETRINGA & another. JOSEPH PETRINGA & another vs. BOSTON RENT CONTROL ADMINISTRATOR & another.
with the landlord's motion to dismiss. The court, on May 20, 1975, issued "orders" in which it found "the facts set out in the Stipulation of Fact" filed by the parties, including the fact that on January 28, 1975, the tenants were aware of the exemption ruling issued by the administrator on January 16, 1975. On those facts the judge denied the tenants' application for a preliminary injunction and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on the ground (one of two) of laches. The tenants filed a notice of appeal "from the Orders . . . dated May 20, 1975." The tenants' appeals are without merit.
The summary process action. When this action was brought, the landlord had a certificate of eviction as required by St. 1970, c. 842, Section 9 (b); it was effective until declared invalid. Compare Longo v. Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liab. Policies and Bonds, 356 Mass. 24 , 27-28 (1969); Rafferty v. Sancta Maria Hosp., ante, 624, 626-627 (1977). When the summary process action was heard on the merits and judgment for possession was entered, the certificate was no longer necessary, for the exemption ruling was then in effect. Bowker v. Worcester, 334 Mass. 422 , 433-434 (1956). Greene v. McGoldrick, 106 N.Y.S.2d 839, 841 (Sup. Ct. 1951). The exemption ruling could not be attacked collaterally in the summary process action. Gentile v. Rent Control Bd. of Somerville, 365 Mass. 343 , 350 (1974). See 3 Davis, Administrative Law c. 19, Primary Jurisdiction Section 19.07 at 44-46 (1958). Cf. Sherman v. Rent Control Bd. of Brookline, 367 Mass. 1 , 8-9 (1975). The judge's finding of fact that "beyond any question . . . there was no waiver of the termination of tenancy" must stand since there is nothing in the record appendix before us to the contrary. Gordon v. Sales, 337 Mass. 35 , 36 (1958). See Mastrullo v. Ryan, 328 Mass. 621 (1952). We do not consider the "Statement of the Evidence and Proceedings" included in the record appendix, since the statement was not approved by the judge as required by Mass.R.A.P. 8(c), 365 Mass. 850 (1974). The argument that the tenants had inadequate notice that the exemption would be a factor in the summary process action is close to disingenuous. The bare assertion of error by the judge in refusing to stay the judgment for possession is not an argument. Lolos v. Berlin, 338 Mass. 10 , 13-14 (1958).
Moore v. Kibbee, 385 F. Supp. 765, 765-766 (E.D.N.Y. 1974); 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Section 1366, Conversion of Rule 12(b) (6) Motion into a Summary Judgment Motion (1969); 2A Moore's Federal Practice par. 12.09 Speaking Motion May Be Treated as Motion for Summary Judgment (2d ed. 1975). The "Orders" of the judge incorporating the "Stipulation of Fact" is enough to justify a judgment dismissing the action on the ground of laches. See Latta v. Western Inv. Co., 173 F. 2d 99, 102-103 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 337 U.S. 940 (1949); Community Natl. Bank v. Dawes, 369 Mass. 550 , 558-559 (1976). No mention is made by either party that this case was brought as a class action, and there is nothing to indicate that the plaintiffs sought to certify it as a class action. See Thibeault v. Chief of Police, ante, 360, 360 n.2 (1977).
In the summary process action (Capodilupo vs. Petringa) the judgment is affirmed. In the action to review the exemption ruling (Petringa vs. Boston Rent Control Administrator) the appeal is dismissed.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.