See G. L. c. 151B, § 4 (6) (prohibiting discrimination by "refus[ing] to rent or lease or sell ... or otherwise to deny to or withhold from any person ... such accommodations because of ... any ... handicap"). Cf. Andover Hous. Auth. v. Shkolnik, 443 Mass. 300, 306-307 (2005) (Fair Housing Act and G. L. c. 151B prohibit discrimination in housing); Moretalara v. Boston Hous. Auth., 99 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 8 (2020) (plaintiff's entitlement to reasonable accommodation requires showing of disability, causal link between disability and lease violation, reasonableness of accommodation, and that proposed plan reasonably likely to be effective). Similarly, the protections of G. L. c. 186, § 14, which form the basis of Scott's and Denise's G. L. c. 93A counterclaim for improper billing for utilities, do not apply to holdover occupants after a foreclosure, at least in the absence of evidence of a tenancy relationship between them.

Regardless of how the motions were framed, our review is de novo, and the overarching question we face is whether DOC has demonstrated an entitlement to judgment in its favor as a matter of law. See Moretalara v. Boston Hous. Auth., 99 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 7, 161 N.E.3d 444 (2020). Miller has not demonstrated how he was deprived of an opportunity to respond to the largely uncontested materials that DOC submitted such that he suffered material prejudice.