Do I Have A Case? Ask an Attorney
Search
Serafini, Purdy, Dinardo & Wells - Attorneys At Law - When Knowledge and Experience Matters
Practice Focus Home Email Contact Us Today 617-472-7250

Office Location:
Serafini Purdy DiNardo & Wells
1200 Hancock Street
Quincy, MA 02169
Phone: (617) 472-7250
Fax: (617) 786-0720
Email Us


Serafini Purdy DiNardo & Wells is an experienced law firm located in Quincy, Massachusetts. For over 30 years, we have practiced throughout Massachusetts in the areas of Real Estate Law, Estate Planning, Business Law and Elder Law. Our Firm provides the expertise, knowledge and reliability that are needed to reach the optimum results for our clients. By choosing an experienced Massachusetts Lawyer you can be assured that we know what questions to ask and what to anticipate with every case that we take.

The attorneys and support staff at our firm work together as a team in order to achieve the best possible results for our clients. This team approach allows us to return phone calls promptly and address urgent issues in a timely manner putting the client at ease in knowing that his or her lawyer is dependable and available. At Serafini Purdy DiNardo & Wells we are Massachusetts Lawyers that get your questions and concerns addressed quickly and efficiently.

We pride ourselves on our past experience and reputation. When you call us, you will often talk directly to the attorney who is working on your case. If that attorney is unavailable due to an appointment or a court date, however, you will speak to another member of our team who is knowledgeable about your case.

We handle the following types of cases all over the state of Massachusetts:

If you need the assistance of an experienced Massachusetts Real Estate Lawyer, Elder Law Attorney, Estate Planning Lawyer or Business Lawyer, please contact the firm of Serafini Purdy DiNardo & Wells at (617)472-7250 for a consultation or you may email us or fill out our Contact Form.

Contact our firm to find out how we can assist you with your legal issues. You can rely on our experience, integrity, and attention to detail.


 Name:

 Email:

 Comments:


Recent News

News

Real Estate

[05/15] Conditions Mixed in Commercial Real Estate But Fundamentals Good
[05/15] iStar Financial Declares Preferred Stock Dividends
[05/15] New Service Helps Families Find Discounted Foreclosed Homes
[05/15] Realtors(R) Celebrate a Century of Progress
[05/15] Senators near housing deal

More...

Top Headlines

[05/15] California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban
[05/15] Woman indicted in Missouri MySpace suicide case
[05/15] First music download trial may get a do-over
[05/15] Icahn to Yahoo board: Sell to Microsoft or leave
[05/15] Battle over swimsuits moves to the courtroom

More...

Business

[05/15] Ex-Army Corps consultant among indicted in levee bribe case
[05/15] Icahn to Yahoo board: Sell to Microsoft or leave
[05/15] Icahn sends letter to Yahoo, plans proxy battle
[05/15] Judge: Countrywide shareholders' suit can proceed
[05/15] SEC charges Broadcom co-founders in options probe

More...

Case Summaries

Elder Law

[05/13] Cao v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
In an action wherein plaintiff sought recovery under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for alleged constitutional violations along with several state law causes of action after she was removed from her home, made to undergo a psychological evaluation, and placed in a state institution for the elderly, dismissal of plaintiff's complaint is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's section 1983 claim as untimely; and 2) with no federal cause of action remaining, the district court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.

[05/05] Miller v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
In a suit against American Airlines under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) a collective bargaining agreement did not require that plaintiffs be offered positions of comparable pay past the retirement age; 2) a claim, that a supplement to the collective bargaining agreement governing the retirement of flight engineers was facially discriminatory, was not properly raised before the EEOC.

[03/11] Budnick v. Town of Carefree
In an action raising, inter alia, a claim that defendant-town violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA) by denying plaintiffs a Special Use Permit (SUP) to build a multi-level continuing-care retirement community in the town, summary judgment against plaintiffs on the FHAA claim is affirmed where plaintiff failed to establish a discrimination claim under any of the theories of disparate treatment, disparate impact, or a failure to make reasonable accommodations. Potential residents of a retirement community do not presently qualify as disabled under the FHAA simply because some of them will become disabled as they age.

More...

Property Law & Real Estate

[05/14] Stroman Realty, Inc. v. Antt
An order enjoining California and Florida from applying their licensing and regulatory requirements on a Texas-based real estate broker is reversed and dismissed where: 1) personal jurisdiction over California did not arise from merely having sent cease and desist orders to the Texas Real Estate Commission; and 2) personal jurisdiction over Florida did not arise from the state's contact with the Texas Attorney General's Office in order to obtain information on the plaintiff for a suit in Florida.

[05/14] Ericson v. Fed. Express Corp.
In a premises liability tort action arising from a third-party's assault and robbery incident in defendant's parking lot, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the third-party assault was not foreseeable under even the "regular reasonable forseeability" test; and 2) the negligent undertaking doctrine was inapplicable.

[05/14] Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures, L.C.
In an action brought by plaintiff-architect under the Copyright Act alleging that defendants infringed his copyrighted architectural designs via the design, development, and construction of certain Trump buildings, summary judgment for defendants, as well as a denial of a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, are affirmed where a thorough review of the record indicated that the district court properly made its rulings under the specific facts of the case and did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for leave to amend.

More...

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.



These materials have been prepared by Serafini Purdy DiNardo & Wells for informational purposes only and are not intended and should not be construed as legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Internet subscribers and on-line readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

All material included in this site is copyrighted, 1999-2004 by Serafini Purdy DiNardo & Wells


Serafini, Purdy, Dinardo & Wells - Attorneys At Law