SALEM LAUNDRY - SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT SALEM LAUNDRY
• ' LAW OFFICES
�^ 1
JOHN R. SERAFINI /`C'�4V��40, � �./
63 FEDERAL STREET P�
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
�Z^ i
JOHN R. SERAFINI � ��j� TELEPHONE '
JOHN R. SERAFI NI,JR. ` 744-0212
JOHN F. SADOSKI j/ AREA CODE 617
CERTIFIED MAIL January 25, 1983 j
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
NO. P18 4854252
Mr. Michael Moniz, Chief Executor Officer
Salem Redevelopment Authority
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Re: Salem Laundry Co. v. Salem Redevelopment Authority
Civil Action No. 16455
Dear Mr. Moniz:
In connection with the above-entitled matter, enclosed
please find a copy of the summons and of the complaint. The complaint
was filed with the First District Court of Essex today.
A copy of this complaint has also been delivered to
Richard Stafford, City Solicitor.
Very truly yours,
J N F. SADOSKI, Esquire
JFS:kam
Enclosures
v /� y
farm DCM- 13 fG ntittontuenith of 'f&29aC4Usett9
Uistrirt Courts of Asww4usetts
ESSEX,as FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF ESSEX
SALEM. LAUNDRYCOe , 65 Washington Street, Salem, MA
-
Plaintiff
v.
Civil Action No. 16455
SALEM REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY,
Defendant SUMMONS
(Rule 4)
Satem Redevetopmen' Authorityy c/o Michael Moniz, Chief Executor
To defendant Officer, of One Salem Green- Salem, Resrssr ro,int;, b4A 91979
(name) (address)
You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon John R. Serafini, Esquire plaintiff('s
attorney),whose address is 63 Federal Street. Salem, MA 01970 ,a copy of your answer to
the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 20 days after service of this summons, exclusive of the day of
service. You are also required to file your answer to the complaint in the office of the Clerk of this court either before
service upon plaintiff('s attorney), or within 5 days thereafter. If you fail to meet the above requirements,judgment by
default may be rendered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You need not appear personally in
court to answer the complaint.
Unless otherwise provided by Rule 13(a), your answer must state as a counterclaim any claim which you may have
against the plaintiff which arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiffs claim
or you will be barred from making such claim in any other action.
WITNESS Samuel E. Zoll, Presiding Justice,on Tanuary 25, 1983
(SEAL) (date)
CLERK/MAGISTRATE
Nola: Ill When more than one defendant is involved,the nenies of all defendants should appear in the action.If a separate summons is used for each defendant.
each should be addressed to the Canicula,delpndant.
(2) The number assigned to the complaint by the Clerk at commencement of the action should Ce affixed to this summons betora it is served.
RETURN OF SERVICE
On Nate of service) I served a copy of the within summons,together with a copy of the
complaint in this action,upon the within named defendant,in the following manner(see Rule 4(d)(1-5)):
(signature)
(name and title)
laddress)
Note: (11 The Carson serving the process shall make Proof of service thereof in writing to the conn and to the party or his attorney.as the case may be,who bas
requested such service.Proof of service shall be made promptly and in any event within the us"time during which the Person served must respond to
the process. Rule 4 III.
121 Please place date you make service on defendant in the box on the copy served on the defendant,on the original returned to the coon,and on the copy
returned to the person requesting service or his attorney.
(3) 1f service is made at the Lost and usual place of abode, the officer shall forthwith mail first clan a copy of the summons to such lost and usual piece of
abode,and shall set forth in the return the date of mailing and the address to which the summons was sant.4131 c.213,sec.31).
This form prescribed by the Chief Justice of the District Count
A
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS. First District Court of Essex
Docket No.
SALEM LAUNDRY CO., )
Plaintiff )
VS. ) COMPLAINT
SALEM REDEVELOPMENT )
AUTHORITY, )
Defendant )
1. Plaintiff is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts with an usual place of business in Salem, Essex County,
Massachusetts.
2. Defendant is a public body politic and corporate created and existing under
the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with an usual place of business in
Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts.
3. Plaintiff had a drain pipe running from its premises located on Lafayette
Street, Salem, Massachusetts, which pipe was connected to a municipal storm drain
located in Lafayette Street, a public way in the City of Salem. Said connection had
been made some years ago in order to assure that any waters collected on Plaintiff's
premises, including the roof, would be discharged in such a manner as not to accumulate
on Plaintiff's property. Said drain system and drain pipe had operated properly.
4. On or about January 27, 1980, or January 28, 1980, the Plaintiff began
experiencing serious flooding conditions in its above-described premises. Efforts to
determine the source of said flooding were unavailing. 1
5. On or about January 28th or 29th, 1980, the Plaintiff hired a contractor
to try to determine the source of said flooding. The contractor had to dig up the
sidewalk and street in front of the Plaintiff's premises on Lafayette Street in order
to determine the condition of the drain pipe going from Plaintiff's premises to the
municipal storm drain in said Lafayette Street. After excavating a distance of eight
to ten feet below the street, Plaintiff's contractor exposed the Plaintiff's drain pipe
and determined that such pipe had been crushed and disconnected from said; municipal
storm drain in Lafayette Street.
6. Said drain pipe was disconnected from said municipal storm drain by
LAW omF Defendant or its agents and/or employees at the time when said Defendant had installed
JOHN R.SERARNI a new storm drain in said Lafayette Street.
,3 FE AL STREET
:ALEM.MASS.01970
(61'D 140-0212
7. At the time of the completion of the installation of said new storm drain,
Defendant or its agents and/or employees negligently failed to reconnect Plaintiff's
drain pipe to said newly installed storm drain, with the resultant effect being that
Plaintiff ultimately suffered flooding conditions in its above-described premises.
8. After Plaintiff's contractor had exposed Plaintiff's drain pipe, the Director
of Public Services of the City of Salem was called and examined said drain pipe and
its position in relation to the storm drain in Lafayette Street. Said Director agreed
that the Plaintiff's drain pipe had been disconnected from the municipal storm drain,
and had not been reconnected when the new storm drain was installed in Lafayette
Street by Defendant and its agents and/or employees.
9. Plaintiff suffered substantial damages as a result of said negligent failure
by Defendant or its agents and/or employees to reconnect Plaintiff's drain pipe to said
newly installed storm drain.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands that judgment be entered against the Defendant
in the amount of Fifteen Thousand and 00/100 ($15,000.00) Dollars together with interest,
costs, and attorney's fees.
SALEM LAUNDRY CO.
By its Attorney:
Dated: January 25, 1983 JOHN F. SADOSKI, Esquire
Law Office of John R. Serafini
63 Federal Street
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
(617) 744-0212
LAW OFFKES
JOHN R.SERAFINI
6 FEDERAL STREET
SALEM.MASS.01970
161n 744 2t2
�~ E SALEM LF=RY
n a
Alf. r.
4
`V4 vaF • .. �h ._e .st V. .
+March'1B; 1969TM r
{. .
i
a
' u
A
IR
< Mr. Charles"J. ,Horan
k Assistant Regional Administrator
for Renewal Assistance '"
. ` Department of 'Housing & Urban Development .: `
26 Federal plaza w
?` Nev York,' New,York ,
ATTENTION: #Mr. 'Ben Huffian
•t 4u1>./EM Mass t'.B-95
Additional AppraSsal Services
hr .. i d "` • k � F s .�
Dear N,r. Horan s
A ' t
;The Salem Redsvelopmait Authority respectfully requests'
permission to engage additional'appraisal• services to provide' x <
` f-- a "Cost to Cure solution,with,respect to,a f y t
of the.•Salem:Laundvy. Company, identified as Block•lh Parcel J in ,
.,the a0juisition plan.'. This,matter'if�i discussed in detail with ` ' `
Mr.I Herman'Norse 'of your real estate acquisition staff when he was
x A
in' Salem.to review•
• ,Pxopertias, I
� .A..t the.time of the first;aequsition appraisal-by Ralph S. , a
= Foster,„& Sons,the appraiser was. Unable to gain entrance to the ° .
propertp and provided an,,-appraisal anthis basis. At''•tii® time of
si
the second`acqultion a
ppraisal Hr. James McGoff ofHeredithr&
Grex Hasable to.inspect athe`.interior'of sai"d;:property. Mr.aMcCoff x
recommended ,that°in•order.to properly'complete the,appraisal it
we , would be necessary to secure,additional surveys',which would'enable
the fair value to be established., Subsequently, the Authority was ,
able to.gain admittance to'the prop®rty for,Mr. Foster, in order
that the first appraaaal'may be up=dated,
S+ y � f'..Y4 ' .k a} a w.# ^... d .`.: H• _ r '4 • 7
#e
wl
Mr. Charles"J. Horan March 18, 1969y
Page 2
y ATTENTIONt Nor. Ben Huffman
Mrs Foster concurre'd•with Ms. McGoff's-findings end the
Authority proceeded to interview competent firms to provide the,
necessary additional. information.
.}r f
Several- laundry companies were contacted"in,an effort to
find a company who. could make the necessary survey for the.appraiser- ,b
and also be able to testify in court if�necessaryi None were avail-}`
4 able: , .: r , • tee.
Charles',T. Main Co.,' Engineera,at 441' Stuart'Street, Boston,
.::Massachusetts•was contacted and based on an inspection.ofthe'-plant ..' Y "
and.a conference with Mr, McGoff, submitted 'a proposal for a;report.at
» :
a cost of $121.500. .' 4
•
w s .
The Manufacturers Appraisal Company, 210 North Bioad 'Street,
-Philadelphia, Pa, also inspected the Laundry.and'discussed'the required
report with-Mt.- Foster. rTheir proposal was for $5,000.
Mr:' Royal Dion, 42 Loweil•Street, Nashua,. New Hampshire,-was .,' ,
also requested ,to submit a proposal. Yx.,DionrIei. not aa,engineer.`
« " <» nor an'appraiser, but has operated a oleaniag and laundry business . '
for over 30 years. . He has performed'lay-out,and'installation `of
" laundry equipment for himself and:other laundries. -He would.'also.
be available to testify in court. His,proposal is based on $12.50
jer, hour, estit' ted time of 10 days work.-
; '
the.Proposals iwere dineussed- with two appraisers and'Counsel
(negotiator) for the Authority:' The following recommendations
resulted:"a' coordinat6d appraisal be made by,-engaging-the Manufacturers •e
-, Appraisal Company to do a "Cost to Cure" valuation of the Salem=Laundry ;.
company at a fee of $5,000p,14r. Royal Dion `be:engaged to.make a,study.
, . _.at a cost•not to'sxcesd1$1,000.-, Mr. Dion's opinion would be that ofY-
" t+ - + an.expert actuallydealing-in the operation•:of-a laundry, and sub sequently
^ i
swould grove most valuable. •` »
As the damages to,the Salem Laundry could be 'substantial, it is
" felt the' twb real estate"appraieers' ropinions,should be.based;,on
engineering study and'a1s0 a study-by;a laundry`expert: This'irould•. ^ .
allow the Authority_to;arrive at an•equltable'figure. pur negotia-fi "
I for would•be n'a stronger position�to,defend, our figure and. we��z•
'..would bs„ in=an equally strong .position'to"defend .our figure•in court.
1£ necessary.
kyc .v'.0. ' .? / `..1. .'.'4 ,_% �3 .. • Y �' b •.
5 '
' .kTb.� tial { Yr d � } .� Y T ;`.,^ W y _ •
• E` :! ,pp +•r„4 0.. rP ,. yi z,".:gyp i �p g#ti' -o
IA
t + Jy YY w' i, -S-..y.,! a1.§ 4g 1 �• � C �
41
Y" Mr. Charles J. Horan' March 18;-,1968',I
r~ -°AWENTIONe Mr Ben Huffman
Copies of,proposais and qualifications are $nclosedafor :
your `
review*
If any questions occur; please feel free'to contact the staff,� r
Q . as it, is most •difficult to. adequately explain;the.'probleailln'writing
, `
. although it xasrdisus�ed in detail with Mr. Morse.= • :`_° "_''
Prompt action"on this matter will be appreciwated. _
w,. 4 Respectfully youis;
E' ,l SAUM,ROEV=PM�NT AUTHORITY
µ y , John W. Barrett Y
• „ Escecutive'Diisector'
a
'lie .•� � 5 1 _ n nT N" n
r
'4. i F .:AI t a •'�'.;+ r« *w/! i P' p +1'p ^ .
�l r x _ `A � • h rS . . r t tr -
r
33 4 ✓•'R 4 # M W 'FL
�
+ q
N�'� . ,� "„'�' � e , ,lp r e ! Yd !.�w r.. � a d �•k� fry-
i �'T + moi: �J• . V .y:.
a.
• a q w
r r e <
LV
aIle I
rmIF 1 4
r r . •; � 'a;.4 C, +. "a.'. • y` 51,. $ter :.� �+°.. °4J' . ; e. _ e -
_ F r
> F . f
z
R
i
SALEM LAUNDRY COMPANY
LAFAYETTE STREET
SALEM, MASS. gun stowage
DRY CLEANING ALL CLASSES OF
RUG CLEANING LAUNDRY SERVICE
May 4, 1965
Salem Redevelopment Authority
32 ,Derby. Square
Salem, Massachusetts
Gentlemen:
The plan for Heritage Plaza Bast, as presented by the Salem
Redevelopment Authority has been carefully studied by us. The
plan as presently conceived, poses a grave hazard to the future
operation of the Salem Laundry Company. The proposal to demolish
and remove our Drive In and Coin , Operation facility, for the
purpose of constructing a new road could sound the death 'knell
for this enterprise, deprive our employees of jobs, remove a
source of tax revenue to the City, and actually damage the economy
we are all trying so hard to build up.
We believe that slight changes in your road lay out would eliminate
this hazard, save considerable in damages, keep tax revenues for
the City and last, but not least, save the jobs(()of our employees.
The Salem Laundry serves the entire North Shore via routes and
stores. The Drive In Store and Coin Operation is the largest
and most profitable unit we have. Our success, during a period,
when many other family Laundries failed, is due almost entirely
to our ability to spot stores in various locations to combat loss
in route business. Our first store, our largest store and the one
that contributes most heavily to our business, is the one you
plan to demolish.
Last year our payroll exceeded $807,000. Approximately two hundred
employees depend upon us for their livlihood. We feel that we are
a vital part of the economy of Salem. Over the years we have
invested better than $900,000 in buildings and equipment in this
City. We presently average expenditures of about $50,000 annually,
just to replace and improve our present facilities.
It is physically impossible for us to absorb our Drive In Store
into our building. Our Store is closely intergrated with our
Plant and its removal or the elimination of the parking area,
which is a necessary part for this operation, to any other location
in the City could only result in such a loss of business that its
operation would not be profitable.
"FINEST IN PERSONAL SERVICE SINCE 1892"
.. t
f .
SALEM LAUNDRY COMPANY
LAFAYETTE STREET
SALEM, MASS. gat Stowage
DRY CLEANING ALL CLASSES OF
RUG CLEANING LAUNDRY SERVICE
May 4, 1965
Salem Redevelopment Authority Page 2
Our concept of Urban Renewal is the preservation of sound
buildings, profitable business ventures, and the encouragement
of new enterprises. The building you plan to demolish
represents a very large investment is structures and equipment,
is only 15 years old and is modern in every respect.
We respectfully disagree with and oppose the taking of the
portion of our business property described herein and which
would destroy the present strength of this Company and make
further growth impossible. We respectfully request that
you re-examine this portion of your proposed plan so that
this business with all its beneficial effects on the City's
economy will be saved.
We should like an opportunity to discuss this with your Committee
at such time and place as you may select.
Yours very truly,
SALEM LAUNDRY COMPANY
OHN B. HOOPER, PrBIDENT
"FINEST IN PERSONAL SERVICE SINCE 1892
Salem Laundry Company
Salem Mass.
FM' y S�' r
.- MAY S�J� i .; , �T,
'S 65 ; `
T �
Salem Redevelopment Authority
32 Derby Square
Salem, Massachusetts
l ,
i •
MAY 19, 1965
- .: a ,e#. .. � �,• �:- t :: ;=
Hr. John B.`Hooper, Pres`.` i^ " � P
Salem Laundry Company .�� p . s^
Lafayette Street 4 w"
• , Salem,, Massachusetts
Dear Mr. HoopIP
er
At the most re"cenrt keeting of ,the Salem Redevelopment
Authority, held on Dtay ,I4,` 1965i your correspondence was brought
to .the .attention of the members of ',the Authority.
The members -0f'`the Authority ire desirous of meeting
with you at your plant to:vievr�theaied_ hV—olved and to then
d$scuss, the'matter'furtlier with you' at. the Authority office. An
'evening meeting would be p' eferable-since this' .a 11 permit
maximum attendance by Authority members .and. Also. allow adequate. .
' time for discussion. e
Would you;please contact the Authority"office and ._
suggest .a`number :of. dates that would be. suitable for' such a
meeting? We shall then contact members. of the Authority and
select rane',which ;would;be'';mutually'agreealle. r
k J
`Sincerely yours,
' Franklin,A. �HebardChairman
* Salem Redevelopment Authority
FAHsec
q
w