Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Citation
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Parent Document
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 2000-02-11
Other Sections in This Document (45)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
Full Text
795 charsIn reaching these conclusions, the Court relies on Serreze v. YWCA of Western Massachusetts, Inc., 30 Mass.App.Ct. 639 (1991).4 There, the YWCA sought to evict plaintiffs from housing provided pursuant to a transitional housing program, alleging that the plaintiffs were clients in a temporary treatment program, and, as such, licensees not statutorily protected under landlord-tenant law. Recognizing that “the regulatory scheme underlying the transitional housing program suggests an intention to ‘depart from traditional concepts of the landlord-tenant relationship,’ ” the Serreze court found that “the existence of a classic ‘tenancy’ ... is not dispositive, for G.L.c. 186, §14, does not require such a relationship for statutory protections to attach.” Serreze, 30 Mass.App.Ct. at 642-43.