Sander A. Rikleen quoted in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly article “Notice of special permit does not signify ‘party in interest’”
Sander A. Rikleen, partner in the firm’s Litigation Department, was quoted in a Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly article entitled, “Notice of special permit does not signify ‘party in interest’,” on Thursday, May 31, 2018. The article referred to Murrow v. Esh Circus Arts, LLC, et al.
From the article
Boston real estate litigator Sander A. Rikleen agreed that the plaintiff in Murrow did not have a case for standing based on the facts presented. He pointed out that the root of the plaintiff’s problem was that she initially proceeded pro se.
“This is an illustration of why pro se litigants have so much difficulty, particularly in zoning matters where there is established case law that has twists and turns in it,” Rikleen said.
Had the case been handled by an experienced practitioner from the start, there would have been allegations in the complaint supporting a claim that the granting of the special permit caused harm to the plaintiff specifically, for example through an increased demand for parking by the defendants’ clientele, Rikleen said.
“She appears to have relied solely on her proximity [to the defendants’ property],” Rikleen said. “It was very clear from the docket of the Land Court that she was not an abutter of an abutter. All she had was the allegation she was within 300 feet.”