Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Citation
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Parent Document
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 2003-09-30
Other Sections in This Document (22)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
Full Text
1,381 charsThe Superior Court judge allowed Fiske’s motion under Mass. R.Civ.P. 54(b), 365 Mass. 821 (1974), that there was no just reason for delay in the entry of a final judgment that Qureshi, effective March 1, 2001, was a tenant at sufferance in Fiske’s premises and had occupied the premises as such since that date *469(count I of Fiske’s counterclaim).4 In that respect, the judge acted within his discretion, although it would have assisted review had the judge made specific findings setting forth the reasons for his order. Long v. Wickett, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 380, 402 (2000). Who was responsible for what in connection with the water disruption, a question of money damages, was a collateral issue to the core question whether Qureshi had any right after February 28, 2001, to occupy the premises. The discrete question of damages was subsidiary to occupancy. Final determination of the occupancy issue was better decided on an expedited basis. The underlying purpose embodied in G. L. c. 239 is that there be machinery for expedited adjudication of occupancy questions. See Rule 1 of Uniform Summary Process Rules (1980); Hodge v. King, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 746, 755 (1992). Compare J.B.L. Constr. Co. v. Lincoln Homes Corp., 9 Mass. App. Ct. 250, 252 (1980), in which the partial final judgment entered after allowance of a rule 54(b) motion had no expediting or simplifying effect.