Opinion
11-P-257
02-08-2012
STANLEY ROMANOWSKI v. INHABITANTS OF TOWN OF DEERFIELD.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 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.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The statute at issue here, G. L. c. 111, § 143, has been authoritatively construed by the Supreme Judicial Court not to have a grandfather provision. See, e.g., Moysenko v. Board of Health of N. Andover, 347 Mass. 305 (1964). As to his equal protection claims, the plaintiff did not introduce sufficient evidence that he was treated differently from any similarly situated person to create a genuine issue of fact about the question; the motion for summary judgment therefore was properly allowed. Finally, in light of the lengthy discovery period, the denial of the plaintiff's motion under Mass.R.Civ.P. 56(f), 365 Mass. 824 (1974), was not an abuse of discretion.
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Kantrowitz, Rubin & Agnes, JJ.),