Lenox Farms Limited Partnership v. Kassem, Mohamed et al
This is the leftover money/claims half of an eviction case. In May 2026 the court moved what was left of the Braintree eviction (docket 24H82SP03575) onto a regular civil docket, carrying over the original eviction complaint and tenant Dany Abouelkhier’s counterclaims and cross-claims. On June 22, 2026, Abouelkhier — now representing himself — filed a motion asking the judge to spell out in writing exactly what claims got transferred and to freeze any adverse rulings until that’s clarified. Nothing shows a ruling on that motion yet.
Lenox Farms, the landlord of 550 Liberty Street in Braintree, filed an eviction in December 2024 against Mohamed Kassem and Dany Abouelkhier. The stated reason wasn’t unpaid rent — it was that they allegedly let an unauthorized person, Sandra Frommer, live in the apartment without the landlord’s written permission.
Abouelkhier fought back hard. He answered the complaint and filed counterclaims against the landlord (bad conditions — mold, leaks, bad heat, broken stove; retaliation for calling the Braintree Health Department; Chapter 93A unfair practices) plus a long list of cross-claims against his own co-defendant Kassem (fraud, abandoning the lease, conspiracy with the landlord).
In May 2026 the case was transferred to a civil docket. That normally happens when the possession fight is over or set aside and what’s left is money claims and counterclaims that need regular civil handling.
Right now the fight is not about the merits at all — it’s about what this new docket actually contains.
- Lenox Farms Limited PartnershipPlaintiff (the landlord who sued)Owner/landlord of 550 Liberty Street in Braintree; it wanted the tenants out for allegedly housing an unauthorized occupant, and it also reserved a claim for rent/use-and-occupancy money.
- Mohamed KassemDefendant (named tenant/leaseholder), represented by counselA named defendant on the lease; Abouelkhier claims Kassem signed the lease, authorized Sandra Frommer’s occupancy, then walked away from the rent obligation and denied involvement.
- Dany (Danny) AbouelkhierDefendant, counterclaim plaintiff, cross-claim plaintiff — now self-representedThe occupant of Unit 905 who is both defending the eviction and suing the landlord for bad conditions and retaliation, and suing Kassem for fraud and non-payment.
- Sandra FrommerNon-party occupant at the center of the disputeThe person the landlord says was living in the unit without permission; Abouelkhier says the landlord and Kassem both authorized her, and he asked the court to add her to the lease.
On May 5, 2026, the court opened this civil docket as a transfer from the eviction case and loaded in the old summary process summons and complaint plus Abouelkhier’s answer/counterclaims/cross-claims.
That’s where the current problem comes from. Reading his June 22 motion, Abouelkhier’s complaint is that the docket doesn’t say what the case now IS: there’s no new civil complaint, no statement of transferred claims, no rent ledger or dollar amount, no answer deadline, no discovery schedule, and no clear word on whether possession is still on the table or whether the landlord is still pursuing use-and-occupancy money.
So he filed a carefully-labeled ‘limited’ motion asking the judge to answer 15 specific questions in writing — what transferred, what pleading controls, whether he has to file anything and by when, whether he can amend his counterclaims — and to order that nothing bad (default, dismissal of his counterclaims for failure to prosecute, discovery sanctions, summary judgment, a money judgment) happens until those answers exist.
He also went out of his way to say the filing is not an answer, not a general appearance, and not a waiver of anything.
The next real step is a ruling on the June 22 motion. A judge can grant it in part (a scheduling/clarification order defining the operative pleadings and setting deadlines is a normal, useful thing), deny it as unnecessary, or set a status/case-management conference to sort it out in person.
If the case gets defined, expect the usual civil sequence: the landlord identifying its money claim and amount, Abouelkhier answering or amending, then discovery on the habitability, retaliation, and 93A claims and on the cross-claims against Kassem.
No hearing date appears anywhere in this docket, so don’t assume one is scheduled.
The landlord’s original play was straightforward and legitimate: a for-cause eviction over an unauthorized occupant, with a boilerplate reservation of rent/use-and-occupancy that it never filled in with a dollar figure on the summons.
Abouelkhier’s counterclaims are the classic tenant counterpunch — habitability, retaliation for calling the health department, 93A treble damages. Those are real Massachusetts causes of action, and if the mold/heat/stove complaints and the Health Department report are documented, they have teeth. His cross-claims against Kassem are more unusual: he’s essentially saying his co-tenant used him, stopped paying, lied to the court, and teamed up with the landlord. The ‘civil conspiracy’ count is the kind of allegation that’s easy to write and very hard to prove.
The June 22 motion is where it gets interesting. On the merits, he has a fair point — a bare ‘civil case transfer’ docket with no new complaint and no ledger genuinely is confusing for a self-represented person, and asking the court to identify the operative pleading is reasonable.
But the framing is doing a lot of work. Seven pages of ‘this is not an answer, this is not an appearance, I waive nothing,’ fifteen numbered questions, and a request that the court pre-block default, discovery sanctions, summary judgment, and any money judgment ‘until further order’ — that reads like a request for an indefinite freeze dressed up as a housekeeping question. It appears designed to buy time and to build a paper record that he can point to later if anyone tries to default him or dismiss his counterclaims.
My honest read: the legitimate core (tell me what the case is and set a schedule) is likely to get some traction; the sweeping ‘nothing adverse may happen to me’ relief is the kind of thing judges usually trim down to a plain scheduling order. Notably, no opposition from either the landlord or Kassem shows on this docket yet.
Newest first — the plain-English reading leads; the court's wording follows.
- 06/22/2026Abouelkhier, now representing himself, filed a ‘limited’ motion asking the judge to state in writing exactly which claims were transferred into this civil case, which pleading controls, and what his deadlines are — and to hold off on any default, sanctions, summary judgment, or money award until that’s spelled out.Court's wordingMotion filed by
- 05/05/2026The court converted the leftover parts of the eviction case into a regular civil case under a new docket number, which typically happens when the possession fight is resolved or set aside and only money claims and counterclaims remain.Court's wordingCivil Case Transfer
- 05/05/2026The original December 2024 eviction papers were placed in the new civil file: the landlord sued Kassem and Abouelkhier for cause — allegedly letting Sandra Frommer live in Unit 905 without written permission — and checked the box reserving any rent or use-and-occupancy that came due during the case, without listing an amount.Court's wordingSummary Processes Summons & Complaint filed
- 05/05/2026Abouelkhier’s answer, counterclaims, and cross-claims were docketed here: he denies the lease violation, blames the landlord for mold, leaks, bad heat and a broken stove, claims the eviction was retaliation for his health department complaint (plus 93A treble damages), and separately sues co-defendant Kassem for fraud, abandoning the lease payments, and conspiring with the landlord.Court's wordingDanny Abouelkhier's Counterclaim