Legal fees accumulate in Kasabuski battle

SAUGUS – Two years after assuming ownership of Kasabuski Ice Rink, Dan Maniff and John Curley found themselves on the verge of being ousted by the town.However, when the dust settled, the town had spent upwards of $200,000 in legal fees only to end up owing Maniff and Curley $32,000.The matter could have been settled earlier had the town heeded the original judgment of $18,000, rendered by Suffolk Superior Court Judge Geraldine Hines, to recoup insurance costs that the town originally agreed to cover. In accordance with state law, a yearly 12 percent interest rate was applied to the judgment, causing the amount to escalate.”I credit the plaintiffs’ testimony and documentary evidence as to both curative action and compliance with the lease,” Hines wrote in her decision. “The town offered no credible evidence to rebut the plaintiffs’ evidence or otherwise prove the alleged defaults.”Attorney Neil Rossman, council for Maniff and Curley, explained the dispute arose in 2010 when then-Selectman Scott Crabtree learned that the owners were not giving “preferential treatment” to the Saugus Public Schools or to Saugus Youth Hockey as the town had done beforehand.Rossman said Crabtree then “made a personal crusade to take back the rink,” although it was against the advice of then-Town Manager Andrew Bisignani, who maintained that the rink owners had done nothing wrong.Selectmen then moved to have the owners evicted, claiming that Maniff and Curley had refused to adhere to the terms of the $40,000-a-year lease.”I was obviously not going to be bullied,” said Maniff.Maniff explained that he and Curley had invested $400,000 to improve the rink and that there were no problems during their first year of ownership.Referring to Maniff and Curley as “operators” rather than owners, attorney Ira Zaleznik, who represented the town, said that the state is the rink’s true owner. He added that it is being leased to the town and in 2008, the town entered into a sublease agreement with Maniff and Curley who believed “they were the new sheriffs in town.”Zaleznik explained that one of the terms required the weekly allocation of 12 hours for public skating and for two of those hours to be in consecutive blocks on the weekends.In contrast, Zaleznik pointed out that on some weeks, less than 12 hours were available with only one hour on the weekends and skating times, such as Mondays from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., were not conducive with the average work schedule.”That’s not following the lease,” he said.Zaleznik maintained that the owners interpreted the lease “to fit their pre-planned, erroneous scenario.”Following Hines’ decision, Zaleznik submitted the case to the state Appellate Court in November 2012. However, after the case was argued in February 2014, the three associate justices upheld Hines’ decision.”We accept a trial judge’s factual findings absent clear error,” they wrote in their May 5 decision.On May 27, Zaleznik attempted to appeal the case to the state Supreme Judicial Court. However, the high court chose not to review the case.Curley was unavailable for comment.