Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this personal injury case, Plaintiff Alfred Ocasio appealed a judgment entered in favor of Defendant Federal Express Corporation (FedEx). Plaintiff was a mail handler who pulled by hand, large, heavy canisters filled with mail from delivery tractor-trailer trucks. One day as he was pulling canisters from a FedEx tractor-trailer truck, he accidentally stepped into and caught his leg in a gap between the rear of the truck and the loading dock. When a canister he had been pulling continued to roll toward him, the bones of his trapped leg were shattered. He argued on appeal that the Trial Court erred when it allowed the jury to apportion fault to his employer, the United States Postal Service (USPS), and when, despite the jury's $1,445,700 verdict in his favor, it entered judgment for FedEx after comparing the fault allocated to him to the fault allocated to FedEx. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that "while it was not error to allow the jury to apportion fault to the USPS, it was error to deny the plaintiff any recovery against FedEx. We, thus, affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand." View "Ocasio v. Federal Express Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant Robinson Garcia was certified as an adult and convicted of one count of second-degree murder and one count of riot. On appeal, he argued that the Superior Court erroneously: (1) denied his motions to suppress; (2) excluded the testimony of a defense witness; and (3) prohibited him from testifying about statements made by the victim. Defendant's convictions arose out of the August 11, 2005 beating of Stephen Raymond in Manchester. After Raymond's death, Defendant was charged with second-degree murder. Defendant was also charged with three alternative theories of felony-level riot, alleging that he assembled with others with the purpose of causing Raymond to suffer serious injuries. The trial court made a number of rulings unfavorable to Defendant. Defendant appealed those rulings. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the evidence presented at trial supported his convictions, and affirmed the trial court's decisions in his case. View "New Hampshire v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Petitioner Joel Harrington appealed a superior court order in favor of Respondent Metropolis Property Management Group, Inc. (Metropolis). On May 27, 2005, Petitioner entered into a residential lease for an apartment at Hollis Commons Apartments in Concord. The lease agreement required the petitioner to pay a security deposit of $875 to be held "until the termination of Lessee's occupancy." Petitioner entered into two lease renewals, the first in May 2006 renewing the lease for one year, and another in June 2007. The second renewal called for a term commencing on July 1, 2007, and ending "60 days after written notice has been given." The original lease agreement and both lease renewals identified "Hollis Commons Apartments, LLC" as the lessor. The parties had a dispute over the lease agreement and return of the security deposit. Petitioner argued that the trial court erred in finding that Metropolis was not a party to the lease agreement, and in dismissing his contract claims. Although the lease agreement and renewals all show "Hollis Commons Apartments, LLC" as the lessor and either Petitioner or the Petitioner and his wife as the lessees, Petitioner contended that Metropolis must be considered a party to the agreement. Upon review of the trial court record and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision to dismiss Petitioner's case. View "Harrington v. Metropolis Property Management Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant Patrick McArdle appealed a family court order that granted a final domestic violence protective order to Plaintiff Lisa McArdle. The day before the hearing on the domestic violence petition, Plaintiff moved to amend the petition with allegations of three prior incidents: (1) Defendant had admitted to "flip[ing] out in a rage type thing" at work, pushing over a three-foot staging and portable bathrooms, and smashing holes in sheetrock; (2) in the summer of 2009, Defendant had thrown a large rock at the back of their son's car, damaging the car; and (3) at some point in their marriage, during an argument between the parties, Defendant had thrust his hand through a window, breaking his finger. The motion to amend the petition was not accompanied by an affidavit attesting to the facts under oath. Defendant objected to Plaintiff's motion to amend the petition on the basis that she had not attested to the factual allegations. The trial court addressed Defendant's objection by having Plaintiff attest to the facts alleged at the commencement of the hearing. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of which he did not have proper notice, basing its final order of protection upon such evidence, and considering evidence of incidents that were too remote in time. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the evidence presented supported the court's decision to issue the protective order. View "In re McArdle" on Justia Law

Petitioner Limited Editions Properties, Inc., appealed a superior court order upholding a decision to deny Petitioner's subdivision application by the planning board of Respondent Town of Hebron (Town). Petitioner owned 112.5 acres of property in Hebron on the northwest end of Newfound Lake with frontage on West Shore Road. A portion of the lot lay within the Hebron lake district, and the remainder lay within the rural district. In an earlier decision, the Board determined that because Petitioner had materially revised its plan for the property, it was required to submit a new application to develop it. Petitioner sued, and the Board was reversed. When the Board resumed consideration of the application, Petitioner requested that it grant preliminary conditional approval of the plan's overall concept before Petitioner sought the required state and federal permits. Petitioner acknowledged that the plan would not meet then-current state regulations; it intended to revise the plan to obtain the necessary permits after the Board granted preliminary approval. Once it obtained the permits, Petitioner intended to return to the Board for consideration of any necessary changes to the plan. However, the Board determined that it would not approve the subdivision application in stages; rather, it would either conditionally approve the application or deny it. After holding several hearings on the application, a motion to deny the application was introduced and seconded, and after further discussion, three of the five members of the Board voted to deny the application. Petitioner subsequently appealed to the superior court, which upheld the Board's decision. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that Petitioner failed to establish that the trial court erred in affirming the Board's decision. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Limited Editions Properties, Inc. v. Town of Hebron" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Carleton, LLC appealed a superior court order finding that the Defendants' notice of intention to adopt articles of dissolution was timely filed. In 1995, Bukk Carleton and Defendant Richard Balagur formed defendant MTS Corporation (MTS) for the purpose of purchasing land and operating as a real estate holding company. In 2004, Carelton brought an action agains MTS and Richard Balagur to dissolve MTS, obtain payment of rent due MTS, and to remove Richard Balagur as an officer and director of MTS. Richard Balagur brought an action to compel MTS to transfer certain real estate to him, and to pay him certain funds. Adrienne Balagur, Richard's mother and a shareholder in MTS, successfully moved for leave to file an election to purchase shares in lieu of dissolving MTS pursuant to state law. The parties sued over how to value the shares in MTS. Concluding that the trial court did not err in its determination of the terms and conditions of purchase of the shares, the Supreme Court appointed a commissioner to sell MTS' real estate holdings should Mrs. Balagur not comply with the Court's order. One month after the Supreme Court issued its holding, the Balagurs and MTS filed a notice of intention to adopt articles of dissolution. Carelton objected, contending that the notice was not timely filed. The trial court held that the notice was timely filed and Carelton appealed. Upon review of the trial court record and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that the notice of intent to adopt articles of dissolution was timely filed. View "Carleton, LLC v. Balagur" on Justia Law

Respondent Parade Residence Hotel, LLC (Parade) appealed and Petitioner Harborside Associates, L.P. (Harborside) cross-appealed a superior court decision that partially affirmed and partially reversed the decision of the Portsmouth Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) to grant Parade variances to install two parapet and two marquee signs on its hotel and conference center site. Upon review, the Supreme Court found evidence in the record to support the ZBA’s factual findings: "[b]ecause the ZBA used the correct test to determine whether the public interest and spirit of the ordinance factors were met and because there is evidence to support the ZBA’s findings on these factors, to the extent that the trial court ruled that the ZBA acted unlawfully when it found that the factors were met, the trial court erred." Further, the Court found there was evidence in the record supporting the ZBA’s finding that the signs would not "negatively impact surrounding property values ... the ZBA was also entitled to rely upon its own knowledge, experience and observations." The Court partially affirmed and partially reversed the superior court's decision, and remanded the case back for further proceedings. View "Harborside Associates, L.P. v. Parade Residence Hotel, LLC" on Justia Law

Respondent Debra D. appealed a family court order that terminated her parental rights over her sons, Michael E. and Andre E., for failing to correct conditions leading to a finding of neglect. The court issued a final dispositional order finding that the Respondent had neglected Michael E. and Andre E. by selling drugs from her home and in their presence. The final order set forth conditions the Respondent had to meet before the children could safely be returned to her. These conditions, which were intended to correct those that led to the finding of neglect, included: (1) refraining from drug and alcohol use; (2) attending individual counseling; (3) working cooperatively with a parent aide; and (4) undergoing a neurological evaluation. Twelve months after the final dispositional order was issued in the neglect case, the court held a permanency hearing and found that Respondent was not in compliance with its order. Accordingly, the court ordered a termination of parental rights petition. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Respondent's parental rights should have been terminated. The Court affirmed the family court's decision. View "In Re Michael E." on Justia Law

Respondent Ruth Chevion appealed and Petitioners Aaron and Katie Boissy cross-appealed a superior court order that partly granted and partly denied Petitioners' petition to quiet title. The trial court ruled that Respondent lacked an easement to use a certain well on Petitioners' property, but that she had a deeded right-of-way over the property to access a former ice pond. The parties owned neighboring parcels of land in Hopkinton. Petitioners owned three lots, one of which adjoined Respondent's lot. Petitioners brought action to quiet title to two easements Respondent claimed to have on their property. The first easement allegedly gave Respondent the right to pipe water to her house from a well on one of Petitioners' three lots. The second easement allegedly gave Respondent a right-of-way over Petitioners' property to access the pond. The trial court rejected Petitioners' assertion that Respondent's well easement was extinguished by abandonment, but that the easement was extinguished nonetheless because its purpose (to allow use of a certain well on Petitioners' property) was impossible to accomplish. Upon careful review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Boissy v. Chevion" on Justia Law

Defendant Kevin Hampsey appealed a final stalking protective order issued against him. Plaintiff Jessie Despres and her three children resided in an apartment for which Defendant’s company was the property manager. She testified that Defendant frequently stopped by or walked into her apartment unexpectedly, and that he made sexual comments and advances toward her. She recounted a specific incident that occurred in March 2010, when she called Defendant because her basement had flooded. After checking the basement, the two went outside. Plaintiff testified that she was in her pajamas and felt uncomfortable, and that Defendant "made comments on how he wished he would have caught [her] in less clothes and then proceeded to kiss [her] in [her] right ear," slam his body into hers, and tell her he wanted to have sexual intercourse with her. She told the court that she felt threatened and intimidated by Defendant, and that her "kids [were] intimidated by the constant drive-by's, . . . which [were] . . . followed by either calls or him stopping in." On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in: (1) failing to make findings of two or more specific acts that constitute stalking; (2) making findings that are unsupported by the record; (3) failing to weigh the credibility of the witnesses; and (4) issuing a stalking order where "most of [plaintiff's] allegations were too vague and non-specific for [him] to respond to." Upon review, the Supreme Court was unpersuaded by Defendant's arguments on appeal, and affirmed the trial court's decision to issue the protective order against him. View "Despres v. Hampsey" on Justia Law