1. Boston Rent Board Litigation

Beginning in 1990, Albert Farrah successfully represented the owners of over 500,000 square feet of industrial space in Boston, in which dozens of tenants were alleged to be living and working as artists, against claims by the Boston Rent Equity Board that the Board had jurisdiction over these properties under the Boston Rent Control ordinance.

The Boston Rent Equity Board sued Mr. Farrah's client, claiming all properties were rent controlled and that the Board had the right to (a) require the owners to register all 500,000 square feet of space under the Rent Control Ordinance, (b) roll back rents to 1969 levels, and thus, establish rent controlled rents, (c) limit the amounts, if any, that rents could be increased each year, and (d) order the repayment of rent overcharges, payable to tenants, and former tenants, reaching back to 1969.

The potential impact to the landlord was catastrophic, easily in the range of several million dollars. Over a period of five years, Mr. Farrah defended lawsuits and administrative hearings brought by the Board and individual tenants.

A settlement was finally reached. The Board exercised no jurisdiction, the properties were never subject to Rent Control and Mr. Farrah's clients paid no damages and suffered no losses.

2. Ahmed H. Fitaihi v. Steffian Bradley Associates

In 2001 and 2002, Albert Farrah represented the developer of a 700,000 square foot private medical facility being built outside the United States, which had retained a Boston architectural firm to design the new hospital. Mr. Farrah defended against a claim by the architect that it is was entitled to well over $1.3 million in additional fees for design services.

After a nationwide search for an appropriate mediator and two days of intensive mediation, a settlement was reached. A confidentiality agreement prevents disclosure of the terms of this settlement.

3. Paine Furniture v. Charak Realty and Nicosia, Suffolk Superior Court C.A. #86-87369

Albert Farrah successfully represented the purchaser of a 40,000 square foot office and retail building in Boston's South End. His client purchased the property from the seller, Charak Realty, which needed a quick closing for tax purposes, despite the fact that Paine Furniture, an earlier prospective purchaser, had brought suit against both Charak and Mr. Farrah's client, and secured a court ordered notice of lis pendens, which it recorded at the Registry of Deeds.

Notwithstanding that lawsuit, and the impediment typically presented by the recording of a lis pendens, Mr. Farrah analyzed the merits of Paine Furniture's lawsuit and the claim it was the superior buyer.

Based on his advice, the client proceeded with this strategic purchase. Under Massachusetts law, first in time is first in right. Had Paine Furniture had prevailed in its lawsuit, the sale to Mr. Farrah's client would have been unwound, with significant financial consequences.

After making the purchase, extensive discovery was undertaken in the lawsuit, including several depositions. When it became apparent that Paine Furniture was unlikely to prevail, the case was settled and the lawsuit dismissed.

4. Pizutti, Trustee v. Rauseo, Trustee, et al, Suffolk Superior Court C.A. #95-07047

In this action, Albert Farrah secured the dismissal of an abutter's appeal of a variance granted by the City of Boston to Mr. Farrah's client. The variance allowed construction of artists' live/work space on the Charlestown waterfront. Typically such an appeal can delay development for a number of years.

Mr. Farrah was able to secure an early dismissal of the case by demonstrating to the Superior Court judge that the abutters had made defective service of the complaint and summons upon the defendants. Because the City of Boston does not operate under c. 40A, the Massachusetts zoning statute, but is instead governed by the Boston Zoning Code, service of process must be in conformity with the requirements of that Code. The plaintiff failed to make proper service, and Mr. Farrah was able to secure dismissal of the claim.

Since the time limitation within which an appeal of a variance under the Boston Zoning Code was only 20 days, any subsequent appeal by the plaintiffs would have been time barred, and therefore futile, and Mr. Farrah's client won the case.