Section 18

Citation: Section 18
Parent Document: Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2000-02-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8353877/mogilevsky-v-keating/ ↗

Full Text

948 chars

Mogilevsky alleges that the Defendants’ interference with, inter alia, the warranty of habitability, the covenant of quiet enjoyment, and his right to heat and hot water qualify as an injury under G.L.c. 93A, §2 because they are “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” (Id. at ¶¶39, 41, 43, 59.) See Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782, 790 (1994). Mogilevsky maintains that the Defendants told Mogilevsky that the apartment’s conditions would be fixed and Mogilevsky remained in the Defendants’ employ because he fully expected the conditions to be remedied. Further, Mogilevsky alleges that he is eligible for damages under 93A, §9, because the Defendants’ actions qualify as a “willful or knowing violation,” since the Defendants knew of the condition in which he lived. (Mogilevsky Amended Complaint at ¶59.) Cruz, 417 Mass. at 790-91. Therefore, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count XI is denied. 5.Mogilevsky’s Discrimination Claims.

Other Sections in This Document (45)

Full Text