Court Case Record VIRGINIA CASEY GOSCINAK & another vs. FAWN ANDERSEN & others 2012-J-0095 UID(3a35)

VIRGINIA CASEY GOSCINAK & another vs. FAWN ANDERSEN & others Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2012-J-0095

Case Number2012-J-0095
Case TitleVIRGINIA CASEY GOSCINAK & another vs. FAWN ANDERSEN & others
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CourtSuffolk Superior Court
Court Address
Field Date03/06/2012
Close Date03/07/2012


John L. Tobin, EsquireVirginia Casey GoscinakPlaintiff/Petitioner
John L. Tobin, EsquireEric HolmesPlaintiff/Petitioner
Daniel J. Pasquarello, EsquireFawn AndersenDefendant/Respondent
Daniel J. Pasquarello, EsquireBjorn AndersenDefendant/Respondent
Caroline Kim, EsquireActing Commissio Boston Inspection ServicesDefendant/Respondent
Denise A. Chicoine, EsquireBoston Redevelopment AuthorityDefendant/Respondent
Denise A. Chicoine, EsquirePaul D. FosterDefendant/Respondent
Denise A. Chicoine, EsquireConsuelo Gonzales-ThornellDefendant/Respondent
Denise A. Chicoine, EsquireJames M. CoyleDefendant/Respondent
Denise A. Chicoine, EsquireTimothy J. BurkeDefendant/Respondent
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
03/06/2012 #1 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 with attachments, filed by Virginia Casey Goscinak, Eric Holmes.
03/07/2012 #2 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Abutters filed an action seeking to challenge the Boston Inspectional Services Department's granting of a building permit on January 12, 2012, for a residential construction project in Charlestown. A Superior Court judge denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction to enjoin construction, and the plaintiffs' subsequent motion for reconsideration. The plaintiffs now seek review of those orders through a petition for interlocutory relief filed pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first para. The principal ground on which the motion judge relied is the failure of the plaintiffs to exhaust their administrative remedies. The plaintiffs do not deny their failure to exhaust but claim they fit within well-recognized exceptions to the exhaustion requirement. They especially focus on an argument that exhaustion would be futile. Having concluded that the plaintiffs have failed to make a sufficient showing that they fit within such an exception, I deny their petition. I have no occasion to review the plaintiffs' arguments on the underlying merits. With regard to the plaintiffs' claims of irreparable harm if the defendant homeowners proceed with construction, I note that the homeowners would be proceeding at their own risk. See generally, Steamboat Realty, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeal of Boston, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 601, 604-607 (2007). Petition denied. (Milkey, J.) *Notice/Attest.