Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Citation
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994) 2.
- Parent Document
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 1994-08-26
Other Sections in This Document (27)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
Full Text
1,611 chars2. The hearing examiner’s conduct. The hearing examiner noted in his report that during the course of the proceedings he had ruled that the record would remain open for a period of one week following the hearing “to allow the submission of certain documents by the representatives of the landlord and the tenant.” Although he determined that documents submitted by the tenant within a week following the close of the hearing were unrelated to the purpose for which the record had been left open, he nevertheless concluded they were relevant and included them in his report as exhibits. After review of the evidence, the hearing examiner also determined that “[b]ecause documents submitted by the landlord and tenant [] were not sufficient to make comprehensive and conclusive findings regarding the abatement claims ... a careful examination of the Inspectional Services file for the property was necessary.” (The inspectional services department is an agency of the city of Cambridge.) As a result of his independent review, he included eight of that agency’s documents in the record as exhibits. In a letter dated approximately ten weeks after the hearing and two months before he filed his report, the hearing examiner notified the landlord and tenant of his posthearing activities, specifically identifying the documents added to the record and afforded the parties “a period of ten days ... to submit documentation or argument in rebuttal, or alternately, to request a further hearing.” The landlord objected to this procedure but did not submit further documentation or argument or seek a further hearing.