CURTIS v. CITY OF CAMBRIDGE (2022)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

In the underlying action, a tenant of a privately-owned apartment building in Cambridge sought to compel the city of Cambridge to remove a motion-activated light in the hallway outside her apartment unit. Before us now is the tenant's pro se appeal from a Superior Court judge's order denying her “emergency” motion seeking that relief. See G. L. c. 231, § 118, second para. We affirm.

For present purposes, it suffices to say that the tenant has not demonstrated that the city has any ownership interest in, or control of, the building to render it a proper defendant in this action.² Having not shown any reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, the tenant cannot demonstrate that the judge abused his discretion in denying the injunction. See generally Massachusetts Port Auth. v. Turo Inc., 487 Mass. 235, 239 (2021).

Order dated October 4, 2021, denying request for emergency injunction affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

2.   The property is subject to an “affordable housing agreement” between its owner and the city, in which the city agreed to provide loans and technical assistance in return for the owner's agreeing to maintain the property as affordable housing. However, the tenant has not demonstrated that the agreement provides the city operational control of the premises.