IBRAHIM ELRIHANE v. JOHN F. POWERS, MARK CASSELLA, ANTHONY T. ZAMBUTO, DANIEL RIZZO, JOHN R. CORREGGIO, ROBERT J. HASS, JR., DOUGLAS GOODWIN, IRA NOVOSELSKY, ARTHUR F. GUINASSO, GEORGE ROTONDO, and MARK CASSELLA, JR. as members of the CITY OF REVERE CITY COUNCIL, and THE CITY OF REVERE

This action was commenced by plaintiff Ibrahim Elrihane on February 2, 2007, seeking, pursuant to G.L. c. 40A, §17, to reverse a decision of the defendant City Council of the City of Revere denying issuance of a special permit to use a certain parcel of real property located at 392 Revere Beach Parkway, Revere (Locus), as a used-car dealership. The present case arises out of an earlier case concerning the same parties and property: Land Court case number 04 MISC 298357.

In the earlier case, filed on April 15, 2004, plaintiff appealed from a decision of the City Council, denying issuance of a special permit to use the Locus as a used-car dealership. After some initial filings, no action was taken on the case until 2006. On August 18, 2006, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Remand. On August 24, 2006, this Court (Trombly, J.) allowed the motion and ordered the case remanded to the City Council for further hearing and findings. The Land Court docket reflects no action on the case following this Order.

The present action is plaintiff’s appeal of the City Council’s second denial of his application for special permit, issued pursuant to the previously issued Order of Remand. On April 29, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for Summary Judgment. On May 30, 2008, defendants filed their own Motion for Summary Judgment. The motions were argued on July 24, 2008, and are the matters presently before the Court.

After carefully considering all of the evidence, this Court entered a Decision, today, ruling that the City Council’s Decision properly denies the plaintiff’s application for special use permit to use the Locus as a used-car dealership.

In accordance with that Decision, it is hereby

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED;

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is ALLOWED; and it is further

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Complaint be, and is, hereby DISMISSED.

By the Court (Trombly, J.).