CRT Decision | Gervasi | 15-BCV-1
Resident present: Yes
Counsel Present for Resident: Yes, Redacted
Vendor: Bay Cove Human Services
Counsel Present for Vendor: Yes, Redacted
Hearing Officer: Dominic Gervasi, Esq.
The defendant/resident entered into an occupancy agreement (“Agreement”) with a Department of Mental Health (DMH) funded residential facility. The Agreement outlined “essential provisions,” which the resident was expected to adhere to as a condition of his stay. The resident agreed to “not behave in a manner that would impair the emotional or physical well-being of other occupants” and “to maintain the [residence] in a clean and sanitary condition.”
Between the months of March and June of 2015, several DMH Critical Incident Reports were generated to document incidents where the resident violated certain provisions of the Agreement related to the safety of others and cleanliness in the residence. After each incident, the resident acknowledged that he was in violation of the Agreement, apologized to the program staff, and made assurances that he would not make the mistake again.
The plaintiff/provider sent the resident notice of his eviction through certified mail. The plaintiff/provider cited specific provisions of the Agreement and referenced the Community Tenancy Residency Act (CRTA). The resident remained in the residence after receiving notice of his eviction and continued to engage in behaviors that violated provisions of the Agreement.
After review, it was held that the plaintiff/provider met its burden of proof. The resident substantially violated essential provisions of the signed Agreement by behaving in a manner that impaired the emotional and physical well-being of the other occupants and failing to maintain the residence in a clean and sanitary condition. The plaintiff/provider provided several reports to support its claims. Furthermore, the plaintiff/provider’s report that the resident continued to violate the Agreement, despite knowledge of the eviction proceedings, supports the decision to uphold the eviction and rule in favor of the plaintiff/provider. The proposed eviction is confirmed.
|15-BCV-1(3) SEARCHABLE.pdf||327 KB|