KIMBERLY HENDERSON & Another v. STEPHEN BOSCO.

── KIMBERLY HENDERSON & Another v. STEPHEN BOSCO. ── Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Date: May 19, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008). COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT 24-P-1300 KIMBERLY HENDERSON & another1 vs. STEPHEN BOSCO. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0 We address the successful counterclaims of a tenant in a summary process case. The defendant, who was the plaintiff's landlord, was found liable for breach of the warranty of habitability, breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, and unfair or deceptive conduct in violation of G. L. c. 93A. We affirm. Background. In the spring of 2020, the landlord bought an apartment complex in Holyoke, where the tenant lived. The landlord later brought an eviction action in the Western Division of the Housing Court for the tenant's nonpayment of 1Eduardo Reyes. Reyes did not answer the eviction complaint or assert any claims against the defendant. rent. The tenant asserted a defense based on substandard conditions. She also contested her liability to the landlord for rent owed to the prior landlord and asserted counterclaims for interference with her right to quiet enjoyment of the property, breach of the warranty of habitability, and violation of G. L. c. 93A. After the parties entered into an interim agreement to resolve the eviction action, the landlord dismissed that case. The remaining counterclaims were transferred to the civil docket. After trial, a jury awarded the tenant $1,000 in damages for the landlord's breach of the warranty of habitability. They found the landlord had committed a breach of the tenant's right to quiet enjoyment by seeking to collect rent owed to the former landlord and awarded her $2,500 in damages. The jury also found that the tenant owed the landlord $7,615 in rent. The trial judge then found the landlord liable under c. 93A for having tried to collect rent he knew was not owed. The plaintiff was awarded attorney's fees and costs. Discussion. 1. Motion for a directed verdict. The landlord maintains that the trial judge erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict on the plaintiff's claim for 2 breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment.2 We are not persuaded. The denial of a motion for a directed verdict presents a question of law reviewed under the same standard used by the trial judge. See O'Brien v. Pearson, 449 Mass. 377, 383 (2007). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, without weighing the credibility of the witnesses or otherwise considering the weight of the evidence. See Tosti v. Ayik, 394 Mass. 482, 494 (1985), S.C., 400 Mass. 224 (1987), cert. denied sub nom. United Auto Workers, Local 422 v. Tosti, 484 U.S. 964 (1987), and cases cited. We uphold the verdict if it may be determined that anywhere in the evidence, from whatever source derived, any combination of circumstances could be found from which a reasonable inference could be drawn in favor of the nonmovant. See Sulli