Phyllis Ndoro v. Maritza Torres (2024)

Citation: Phyllis Ndoro v. Maritza Torres (2024)
Parent Document: Phyllis Ndoro v. Maritza Torres (2024)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2024-12-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10291534/phyllis-ndoro-v-maritza-torres/ ↗

Full Text

1,572 chars

The judge's conclusion that no c. 93A violation occurred because Ndoro "corrected habitability problems within a reasonable time after receipt of notice," is not supported by the evidence and contradicts his findings of fact. See VMark Software, Inc. v. EMC Corp., 37 Mass. App. Ct. 610, 617 & n.8 (1994) (where trial judge's ultimate conclusion that no c. 93A violation had occurred "clash[ed] discordantly" with judge's factual findings, appellate court may reach its own conclusion and set aside judge's ultimate ruling). The undisputed evidence, which included the Lowell board of health's October 2021 and March 2022 inspection notices referencing the substandard bathroom floor, and CTI's November 2021 and January 2022 failed inspections ordering the installation of a new bathroom floor, shows unequivocally that Ndoro did not address the condition of the bathroom floor within fourteen days of receiving notice that the condition of the bathroom floor violated the code. In fact, Ndoro did not endeavor to repair the floor's condition until approximately five months after the first notice from the Lowell board of health, and four months after the first notice from CTI. We thus conclude that Ndoro's failure to take appropriate action to remedy the code violation attributable to the condition of the floor within fourteen days of notice as required under § 3.17(1)(b) and G. L. c. 111, § 127L, and within a reasonable time as required by § 3.17(1)(i), amounted to a violation of c. 93A. See South Boston Elderly Residences, Inc., 91 Mass. App. Ct. at 470.

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text