Opinion
14-P-1860
02-24-2016
UNITED HOUSING MANAGEMENT, LLC v. EVELYN GRAY.
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its 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 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).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
Following a summary process action in the Housing Court, judgment entered awarding possession of the premises to the plaintiff, United Housing Management, LLC (United). The pro se defendant tenant, Evelyn Gray, appeals. We affirm.
United is an agent for VBC Apartments, which owns a thirty-unit apartment building at 495 Blue Hill Avenue in the Dorchester section of Boston. Gray was a tenant in unit number 205. On August 29, 2013, United served Gray with a notice to quit due to serious and repeated violations of her lease, including a breach of the terms of her Section 8 occupancy agreement. See Figgs v. Boston Hous. Authy., 469 Mass. 354, 355 n.2 (2014). At the summary process hearing, Gray admitted that, following a physical and verbal altercation, she used a hammer to shatter a neighboring storefront window, causing serious injury to herself and those in the store. In addition, there was evidence, credited by the judge, of violent, aggressive, and threatening behavior by Gray, which placed other residents of the complex in fear for their physical safety. As a result, the judge concluded that United had established its case "based upon [Gray's] serious and substantial violations of her obligations set forth in the occupancy agreement." We discern no error in the judge's decision.
Gray's further arguments on appeal, to the effect that she suffered discrimination and that United's trial attorney "used illegal tactics to recover the unit" are unsupported by any materials in the record. See Arch Med. Assocs. v. Bartlett Health Enterprises, Inc., 32 Mass. App. Ct. 404, 406 (1992) (appellant has the "burden . . . in the first instance to furnish a record that supports [her] claims on appeal"). Nor, from what appears in the record, were the arguments presented to the trial judge. They are accordingly waived on appeal. See M.H. Gordon & Son, Inc. v. Alcoholic Bevs. Control Commn., 386 Mass. 64, 67 (1982).
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Cohen, Katzmann & Blake, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority. --------
/s/
Clerk Entered: February 24, 2016.