Preview
>
—
\
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPT.
CIVIL ACTION NO.: [G- 230)
CAROL J. RISELLI,
Plaintiff,
Vv.
IN THE OFFICE OF THE.
FOR THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX
PALMISANO ROOFING & CONSTRUCTION
and MARK PALMISANO, INDIVIDUALLY, AUG 06 2019
Defendants.
EY. aaa
ERK.
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DE!
PARTIES
1 The Plaintiff, Carol J. Riselli (hereinafter “Plaintiff’), is an individual who resides
at 325 Bacon Street, Waltham, Massachusetts 02451, Middlesex County.
2 The Defendant, Palmisano Roofing & Construction (hereinafter “Palmisano
Roofing”), is a home improvement contractor company with a registered business address at 11
Nassau Avenue, Wilmington, Massachusetts 01887, Middlesex County.
3 The Defendant, Mark Palmisano (hereinafter “Defendant Palmisano”), is an
individual home improvement contractor with a last known address at 11 Nassau Avenue,
Wilmington, Massachusetts 01887, Middlesex County.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1 On or about the beginning of January 2016, Plaintiff had discussions with
Defendants, Palmisano Roofing and Palmisano (jointly referred to as “Defendants”) for services,
labor, and materials concerning the building located at 714 Broadway, Somerville,
Massachusetts 02144 (the “Property”).
2. Plaintiff is the record owner of the Property as evidenced by her Deed recorded at
the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds Book 65942, Page 153.
3 The Property is used by Plaintiff as a rental property.
4 On or about January 5, 2016, Defendants sent Plaintiff three written Proposals for
services, labor, and materials concerning the building located at the Property. Defendants
services, labor, and materials for the construction work at the Property consisted of demolition
and restoration of the roofing and exterior decking of the building (the “714 Broadway Project”).
5 The three proposals sent from the Defendants to the Plaintiff, all dated January 4,
2016, for the 714 Broadway Project totaled approximately $52,000.00. Copies of the proposals
have been attached herewith as Exhibit A.
6 As consideration, Plaintiff accepted Defendants’ offer for services concerning the
714 Broadway Project and wrote Defendants a deposit check in the amount of $26,000.00 on or
about January 19, 2016.
7 Defendants deposited Plaintiff's first check dated January 19, 2016 in the amount
of $26,000.00.
8 On or about March 15, 2016, Defendants sent Plaintiff an email requesting
another payment in the amount of $25,000.00.
9 Plaintiff wrote Defendants another check in the amount of $25,000.00 on or about
March 23, 2016.
10. On or about March 29, 2016, Plaintiff provided Defendants with another check in
the amount of $850.00.
11. Defendants contacted Plaintiff on or about May 1, 2016 with a “Revised
Proposal” to the contract.
12. Relying on Defendants’ representations that the work was moving forward
accordingly, Plaintiff provided Defendants with another payment for the 714 Broadway Project
in the amount of $25,000.00 on or about May 26, 2016.
13. On or about September 9, 2016, the City of Somerville issued a citation for failure
to obtain a work permit to begin the 714 Broadway Project and fined Plaintiff One Hundred
Dollars ($100.00). See copy of first Somerville Violation Notice Exhibit B attached herewith.
14. Plaintiff informed the Defendants of the September 9, 2016 Violation Notice and
Citation.
15. Defendant Palmisano told Plaintiff not to worry and that “They’Il [Somerville
Building Department] go away. They’1l forget about it [the Violation Notice and Citation].”
16. At Defendants’ request, Plaintiff paid Defendants with another check in the
amount of $5,500.00 on or about September 15, 2016.
17. On or about October 12, 2016, the City of Somerville issued a second citation for
failure to obtain a work permit to begin the 714 Broadway Project and fined Plaintiff Five
Hundred Dollars ($500.00). See copy of second Somerville Violation Notice Exhibit C attached
herewith.
18. In late October of 2016, Plaintiff again inquired with Defendants regarding the
Somerville Violation Notices to which Defendant Palmisano represented to Plaintiff that he
would “take care of the violations” once he “communicated with my[his] insurance company.”
19. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff discovered that the Defendants had removed all of the
equipment and personnel from the Property without any explanation to the Plaintiff.
20. On or about December 9, 2016, the City of Somerville issued a third citation for
failure to obtain a work permit to begin the 714 Broadway Project and fined Plaintiff One
Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00). See copy of first Somerville Violation Notice Exhibit D attached
herewith.
21. Plaintiff left Defendants many voicemails throughout the remainder of October of
2016 and November of 2016 but the Defendants never retumed Plaintiff's calls or returned to the
Property again.
22. As aresult of Defendants’ abandonment of both the 714 Broadway Project and
communications with Plaintiff, Plaintiff was delayed in completing the 714 Broadway Project.
23. As aresult of Defendants’ abandonment of the 714 Broadway Project and ceased
communications, the Plaintiff was forced to hire a new contractor in November of 2016 to begin
demolishing the deficient, noncompliant decking which Defendants’ installed.
24. Defendants never adequately demolished the 714 Broadway Project pursuant to
the Contract or in an acceptable workmanlike manner according to standard practices.
25. Defendants never adequately framed the Project pursuant to the Contract or in an
acceptable workmanlike manner according to standard practices.
26. Defendants never obtained work permits from the City of Somerville.
27. Defendants never passed final inspection with the City of Somerville before
abandoning the 714 Broadway Project.
28. Defendants knowingly misrepresented to Plaintiff that the 714 Broadway Project
was being supervised properly.
29, Defendants knowingly misrepresented to Plaintiff that they were managing the
City of Somerville Violations and permitting procedures.
30. The 714 Broadway Project was properly completed by the new contractor at a
total cost of approximately $18,770.29.
31. On or about April 8, 2019, Plaintiff sent Defendants a demand letter by certified
mail, return-receipt requested pursuant to M.G.L. 93A in an attempt to resolve this dispute.
32. Defendants’ received and signed for Plaintiffs demand letter on or about April
22, 2019.
33. To the present date, Defendants have not responded to Plaintiffs demand letter.
COUNTI
@laintiff y. Patmisano Roofing and Defendant Palmisano)
(Breach of Contract)
34. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 33 of the
Complaint as if set forth herein.
35. Plaintiff paid Defendants a certain sum of money in consideration for Defendants
to provide services and material and thus ratifying the Contract between the parties concerning
the 714 Broadway Project.
36. Defendants Palmisano Roofing & Construction and Mark Palmisano individually
breached their contractual obligations to provide Plaintiff with proper services and materials for
the Contract concerning the 714 Broadway Project.
37. As a result of the above Defendants” breaches of contract, Plaintiff has incurred
damages including but not limited to payments to another contractor to repair and replace
Defendants’ deficient work product and other costs and reasonable attorncy’s fees.
COUNT II
(Plaintiff v. Palmisano Roofing and Defendant Palmisano)
(ntentional Misrepresentation)
38. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs | through 37 of the
Complaint as if set forth herein.
39. In the course of business with the Plaintiff, the Defendants knowingly supplied
false information disguised as guidance for the Plaintiff regarding the City of Somerville
Violations and the 714 Broadway Project.
40. The Plaintiff relied on Defendants’ false information concerning the City of
Somerville Violations and the 714 Broadway Project and was caused pecuniary loss.
41. The Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or
communicating the information conceming the City of Somerville Violations and the 714
Broadway Project.
COUNT III
(Plaintiff v. Palmisano Roofing and Defendant Palmisano)
(Violation of M.G.L. ¢.93A)
42. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 41 of the
Complaint as if set forth herein.
43. The Defendants are engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A.
44. The conduct and acts of the Defendants, Palmisano Roofing & Construction and
Mark Palmisano, individually, constitute unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A, §§ 2 and 11.
45. The Defendants’ wrongful acts and conduct occurred primarily and substantially
within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and were conducted knowingly and willfully.
46. As a consequence of Defendants’ wrongful acts and conduct, Plaintiff has
suffered pecuniary losses.
47. Defendants’ conduct as aforesaid was knowing and willful entitling Plaintiff to
double or treble damages, and attorneys’ fees as allowed by law.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Carol Riselli, demands judgment against the Defendants,
Palmisano Roofing & Construction and Mark Palmisano, individually, jointly and severally, in
an amount to be determined by a judge or jury, that the Court double or treble said award of
damages, together with the Plaintiff's costs and legal fees incurred in prosecuting this action.
REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff, Carol Riselli, demands a jury trial on all Counts.
Respect fly submitted,
Plai; Carol selli,
L. Richard LeClair, II] (BBO# 561650)
Guy A. Sergi (BBO# 704322)
LeClair & LeClair, P.C.
707 Main Street
Waltham, MA 02451
(781) 893-5655
I@leclairlaw.com
gsergi@leclairlaw.com
Dated: August 5, 2019
Preview
> — \ COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MIDDLESEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPT. CIVIL ACTION NO.: [G- 230) CAROL J. RISELLI, Plaintiff, Vv. IN THE OFFICE OF THE. FOR THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX PALMISANO ROOFING & CONSTRUCTION and MARK PALMISANO, INDIVIDUALLY, AUG 06 2019 Defendants. EY. aaa ERK. COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DE! PARTIES 1 The Plaintiff, Carol J. Riselli (hereinafter “Plaintiff’), is an individual who resides at 325 Bacon Street, Waltham, Massachusetts 02451, Middlesex County. 2 The Defendant, Palmisano Roofing & Construction (hereinafter “Palmisano Roofing”), is a home improvement contractor company with a registered business address at 11 Nassau Avenue, Wilmington, Massachusetts 01887, Middlesex County. 3 The Defendant, Mark Palmisano (hereinafter “Defendant Palmisano”), is an individual home improvement contractor with a last known address at 11 Nassau Avenue, Wilmington, Massachusetts 01887, Middlesex County. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1 On or about the beginning of January 2016, Plaintiff had discussions with Defendants, Palmisano Roofing and Palmisano (jointly referred to as “Defendants”) for services, labor, and materials concerning the building located at 714 Broadway, Somerville, Massachusetts 02144 (the “Property”). 2. Plaintiff is the record owner of the Property as evidenced by her Deed recorded at the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds Book 65942, Page 153. 3 The Property is used by Plaintiff as a rental property. 4 On or about January 5, 2016, Defendants sent Plaintiff three written Proposals for services, labor, and materials concerning the building located at the Property. Defendants services, labor, and materials for the construction work at the Property consisted of demolition and restoration of the roofing and exterior decking of the building (the “714 Broadway Project”). 5 The three proposals sent from the Defendants to the Plaintiff, all dated January 4, 2016, for the 714 Broadway Project totaled approximately $52,000.00. Copies of the proposals have been attached herewith as Exhibit A. 6 As consideration, Plaintiff accepted Defendants’ offer for services concerning the 714 Broadway Project and wrote Defendants a deposit check in the amount of $26,000.00 on or about January 19, 2016. 7 Defendants deposited Plaintiff's first check dated January 19, 2016 in the amount of $26,000.00. 8 On or about March 15, 2016, Defendants sent Plaintiff an email requesting another payment in the amount of $25,000.00. 9 Plaintiff wrote Defendants another check in the amount of $25,000.00 on or about March 23, 2016. 10. On or about March 29, 2016, Plaintiff provided Defendants with another check in the amount of $850.00. 11. Defendants contacted Plaintiff on or about May 1, 2016 with a “Revised Proposal” to the contract. 12. Relying on Defendants’ representations that the work was moving forward accordingly, Plaintiff provided Defendants with another payment for the 714 Broadway Project in the amount of $25,000.00 on or about May 26, 2016. 13. On or about September 9, 2016, the City of Somerville issued a citation for failure to obtain a work permit to begin the 714 Broadway Project and fined Plaintiff One Hundred Dollars ($100.00). See copy of first Somerville Violation Notice Exhibit B attached herewith. 14. Plaintiff informed the Defendants of the September 9, 2016 Violation Notice and Citation. 15. Defendant Palmisano told Plaintiff not to worry and that “They’Il [Somerville Building Department] go away. They’1l forget about it [the Violation Notice and Citation].” 16. At Defendants’ request, Plaintiff paid Defendants with another check in the amount of $5,500.00 on or about September 15, 2016. 17. On or about October 12, 2016, the City of Somerville issued a second citation for failure to obtain a work permit to begin the 714 Broadway Project and fined Plaintiff Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00). See copy of second Somerville Violation Notice Exhibit C attached herewith. 18. In late October of 2016, Plaintiff again inquired with Defendants regarding the Somerville Violation Notices to which Defendant Palmisano represented to Plaintiff that he would “take care of the violations” once he “communicated with my[his] insurance company.” 19. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff discovered that the Defendants had removed all of the equipment and personnel from the Property without any explanation to the Plaintiff. 20. On or about December 9, 2016, the City of Somerville issued a third citation for failure to obtain a work permit to begin the 714 Broadway Project and fined Plaintiff One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00). See copy of first Somerville Violation Notice Exhibit D attached herewith. 21. Plaintiff left Defendants many voicemails throughout the remainder of October of 2016 and November of 2016 but the Defendants never retumed Plaintiff's calls or returned to the Property again. 22. As aresult of Defendants’ abandonment of both the 714 Broadway Project and communications with Plaintiff, Plaintiff was delayed in completing the 714 Broadway Project. 23. As aresult of Defendants’ abandonment of the 714 Broadway Project and ceased communications, the Plaintiff was forced to hire a new contractor in November of 2016 to begin demolishing the deficient, noncompliant decking which Defendants’ installed. 24. Defendants never adequately demolished the 714 Broadway Project pursuant to the Contract or in an acceptable workmanlike manner according to standard practices. 25. Defendants never adequately framed the Project pursuant to the Contract or in an acceptable workmanlike manner according to standard practices. 26. Defendants never obtained work permits from the City of Somerville. 27. Defendants never passed final inspection with the City of Somerville before abandoning the 714 Broadway Project. 28. Defendants knowingly misrepresented to Plaintiff that the 714 Broadway Project was being supervised properly. 29, Defendants knowingly misrepresented to Plaintiff that they were managing the City of Somerville Violations and permitting procedures. 30. The 714 Broadway Project was properly completed by the new contractor at a total cost of approximately $18,770.29. 31. On or about April 8, 2019, Plaintiff sent Defendants a demand letter by certified mail, return-receipt requested pursuant to M.G.L. 93A in an attempt to resolve this dispute. 32. Defendants’ received and signed for Plaintiffs demand letter on or about April 22, 2019. 33. To the present date, Defendants have not responded to Plaintiffs demand letter. COUNTI @laintiff y. Patmisano Roofing and Defendant Palmisano) (Breach of Contract) 34. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 33 of the Complaint as if set forth herein. 35. Plaintiff paid Defendants a certain sum of money in consideration for Defendants to provide services and material and thus ratifying the Contract between the parties concerning the 714 Broadway Project. 36. Defendants Palmisano Roofing & Construction and Mark Palmisano individually breached their contractual obligations to provide Plaintiff with proper services and materials for the Contract concerning the 714 Broadway Project. 37. As a result of the above Defendants” breaches of contract, Plaintiff has incurred damages including but not limited to payments to another contractor to repair and replace Defendants’ deficient work product and other costs and reasonable attorncy’s fees. COUNT II (Plaintiff v. Palmisano Roofing and Defendant Palmisano) (ntentional Misrepresentation) 38. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs | through 37 of the Complaint as if set forth herein. 39. In the course of business with the Plaintiff, the Defendants knowingly supplied false information disguised as guidance for the Plaintiff regarding the City of Somerville Violations and the 714 Broadway Project. 40. The Plaintiff relied on Defendants’ false information concerning the City of Somerville Violations and the 714 Broadway Project and was caused pecuniary loss. 41. The Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information conceming the City of Somerville Violations and the 714 Broadway Project. COUNT III (Plaintiff v. Palmisano Roofing and Defendant Palmisano) (Violation of M.G.L. ¢.93A) 42. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 41 of the Complaint as if set forth herein. 43. The Defendants are engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A. 44. The conduct and acts of the Defendants, Palmisano Roofing & Construction and Mark Palmisano, individually, constitute unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A, §§ 2 and 11. 45. The Defendants’ wrongful acts and conduct occurred primarily and substantially within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and were conducted knowingly and willfully. 46. As a consequence of Defendants’ wrongful acts and conduct, Plaintiff has suffered pecuniary losses. 47. Defendants’ conduct as aforesaid was knowing and willful entitling Plaintiff to double or treble damages, and attorneys’ fees as allowed by law. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Carol Riselli, demands judgment against the Defendants, Palmisano Roofing & Construction and Mark Palmisano, individually, jointly and severally, in an amount to be determined by a judge or jury, that the Court double or treble said award of damages, together with the Plaintiff's costs and legal fees incurred in prosecuting this action. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff, Carol Riselli, demands a jury trial on all Counts. Respect fly submitted, Plai; Carol selli, L. Richard LeClair, II] (BBO# 561650) Guy A. Sergi (BBO# 704322) LeClair & LeClair, P.C. 707 Main Street Waltham, MA 02451 (781) 893-5655 I@leclairlaw.com gsergi@leclairlaw.com Dated: August 5, 2019