Lurie Friedman LLP



| Real Estate & Land Use Litigation | Representative Cases


The following are representative cases we have handled in the areas of real estate and land use litigation:

Local Zoning & Regulatory Permitting

  • Landfill and Recycling Facility Permit and Site Assignment»
    We represented the developer of a landfill and recycling facility in a lawsuit by citizens challenging the zoning of the facility. We also defended the state’s issuance of a site assignment and challenging the state’s denial of a permit to construct. We obtained decisions by two judges of the Massachusetts Superior Court affirming the site assignment and mandating issuance of a permit to construct. After the state took the property by eminent domain for $1.5 million, we obtained a Supreme Judicial Court decision that the property should be valued as a landfill, ultimately agreeing to a $35 million settlement with the Commonwealth. See Douglas Environmental Associates, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection, 429 Mass. 71 (1999).

  • Variance for Condominiums»
    We represented a company objecting to issuance of a variance to allow residential condominium development in the industrial Fort Port Channel district of Boston. After defeating the developer’s motion to dismiss, we negotiated a settlement circumscribing the scope and location of the development.

  • Chapter 40B Developments»
    We represented a developer in two separate appeals of denials by a local zoning board of its applications for comprehensive permits for two condominium developments under Mass. Gen. Laws Chapter 40B. After motions were filed with the Department of Housing and Community Development’s Housing Appeals Committee, we obtained a settlement which allowed both developments to go forward.

  • Wetlands»
    We represented a homeowner in a lawsuit against a town for denial of a wetland permit for a new driveway, as well as in a companion lawsuit against the town and the developers and builders of an abutting subdivision for their failure to implement mitigation measures designed to prevent surface water from draining from the subdivision onto our client’s property. After defeating the developers’ motion for summary judgment, we obtained a monetary settlement from the developers and builders of the subdivision, and an agreement by the town to approve our client’s driveway.

  • Tidelands»
    We defended a state highway agency in an administrative appeal filed by a city of a tidelands determination under Mass. Gen. Laws Chapter 91 for construction of the Charles River Crossing portion of the Central Artery/Tunnel project. We obtained a ruling dismissing all objections to the tidelands determination due to lack of standing.  In another matter, we obtained dismissal of litigation brought by a commercial marina on Cape Cod against our client, an abutting marina, regarding the licensing and use of a pier located in public tidelands along the riparian line separating the two properties.

  • Environmental Review»
    We represented a town south of Boston in a lawsuit alleging inadequate permitting under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act for a cinema complex sited just over the border in the adjacent town and which, we contended, would cause significant traffic delays across the town line. After extensive litigation and summary judgment briefing, we negotiated a settlement requiring extensive roadway modifications and traffic remediation.

  • Street Access Bylaw»
    We represented a commercial property owner with respect to a street access bylaw that an abutting town was proposing to adopt in order to interfere with the proposed use of the property as a senior living facility. After a submission by us, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office disapproved the proposed bylaw

Eminent Domain & Regulatory Takings

  • Landfill/Recycling Facility»
    See representation of developers of landfill and recycling facility cited above.

  • Parking Lot/Courthouse/Historical Review»
    We represented the owner of a commercial urban property in obtaining listing of the property on the National and State Registers of Historic Places. We also challenged the taking of the property by eminent domain by the state in order to build a new courthouse.

Environmental Contamination

  • Discharge Permit Violations»
    We represented a fat rendering facility in defending an environmental enforcement action alleging sewer discharges in excess of permitted levels. After extensive discussions with the Attorney General’s Office, we were able to obtain a settlement.

  • Sewage Overflows»
    We represented an owner whose commercial and residential properties were damaged by sewage overflows (and resulting oil spills) from pipes owned by state and local authorities. After discovery and a tripartite mediation with the governmental authorities and their insurance companies, we obtained a settlement.

  • Oil Leak»
    We represented a hazardous materials contractor in claims against its subcontractor and insurance company for damages resulting from an oil leak occurring at a power plant demolition and construction project. After filing a lawsuit seeking an attachment of the subcontractor’s bank accounts, we obtained a settlement.

  • Water Pollution»
    We represented an asphalt batching facility in a suit by a town to recover damages for groundwater contamination to its drinking water supply, and in related compliance and abatement actions.

  • Contamination Of Land»
    We currently represent a company in negotiating with a multi-national corporation for reimbursement of response and remediation costs incurred due to contamination of a parcel of land owned by our client and previously owned by the multi-national’s corporate predecessor.

Commercial Leases

  • Eviction of Communications Company»
    We represented a tenant in an eviction action in which the commercial landlord claimed that the tenant had failed to pay rent and sought accelerated rent. After filing a counterclaim and participating in mediation, we obtained a settlement.

  • Injunction Against Interrupted Operation of Data Center»
    We represented a provider of Internet services whose landlord threatened to cut off power and access to its data center, which would have caused loss of its clients’ data and prevented it from servicing its own customers. After we obtained an injunction in Minnesota state court against the threatened action, the case settled.

  • Interpretation of Lease as to Operating Expenses»
    We represented the successor to an office building tenant in a federal lawsuit by the landlord for unpaid rent. We counterclaimed for operating expense overcharges and violation of Mass. Gen. Laws Chapter 93A due to the landlord’s charging of common area heating and cooling costs to the tenant. After discovery and mediation by a federal magistrate judge, the case settled.

  • Subordination Agreement Dispute»
    We represented the lender to a commercial landlord, who purchased the commercial property after foreclosure, in a summary process eviction action against a tenant. The tenant continued to occupy the premises under a purported lease extension that had never been consented to by the lender, as required under a Subordination, Non-Disturbance and Attornment Agreement. After discovery, we obtained a settlement under which the tenant moved out at a fixed date.

  • Real Estate Tax Dispute/Mixed Use Property»
    We represented an office tenant in a mixed office/retail/parking garage complex in a suit brought by the property owner. We counterclaimed for two decades of overpaid real estate taxes due to improper allocation of those taxes to the office portion of the complex. After expert analysis and negotiations with the owner, we obtained a settlement.

Other Land Use Disputes

  • Dispute Regarding Hotel Pre-Opening Expenses»
    We represent an international operator of a major new hotel in Boston in a dispute with the hotel owner regarding responsibility for payment of $800,000 in pre-opening expenses. Our client maintains that all pre-opening expenses were necessary, appropriate and properly accounted for. After forensic analysis of monies spent opening the hotel, the parties are engaged in pre-litigation dispute resolution efforts required by contract.

  • Development/Brokerage/Management Fee Dispute»
    We represented a developer of retail and other commercial space in the Boston area, who also managed the commercial properties for a decade, in a dispute over on-going development, management and brokerage fees due to him under long-term contracts with the owners of the property. We obtained a settlement after extensive litigation and mediation.

  • Residential Condominium Dispute»
    We represented residential condominium owners who objected to sale of the first floor commercial unit to a 24-hour convenience store. After negotiations, we obtained a settlement that addressed our clients’ concerns about hours of use, security, cleanliness, and other operational issues.

  • Back Bay Commercial Condominium Dispute»
    We represented a bank that financed the purchase of a commercial building in the Back Bay section of Boston. A commercial tenant sought to enforce a purchase and sale agreement for condominium space as to which the bank had never consented. The federal district court in Boston dismissed all claims against our client, and the ruling was upheld on appeal.

  • Affordable Housing Partnership Dispute»
    We currently represent the general partner and the non-profit sponsor/developer of a low-income housing tax credit project in a dispute with the limited partners regarding the right of the non-profit sponsor to exercise a statutorily mandated right of first refusal to acquire the property at the end of the tax compliance period.

  • IndyCar Street Race In Boston»
    We represented a condominium association in the Seaport District of Boston which objected to a proposed IndyCar street race that would cause major adverse environmental, public health and safety impacts on its neighborhood. After receiving our fourteen-page analysis of legal issues regarding the race, the race promoter agreed to provide an extensive mitigation package to our client.




Copyright © Lurie Friedman LLP.  All rights reserved.