Experience

George X. Pucci is a principal of Kopelman and Paige and chair of the litigation practice group. Attorney Pucci has more than 20 years of experience as a trial attorney and appellate advocate. He specializes in representing municipalities and municipal boards in complex litigation, including wetlands, zoning, and subdivision permitting disputes, adult use zoning cases, real estate disputes, and defense of land use related state and federal civil rights claims, including equal protection, due process, and constitutional regulatory takings claims. He also represents municipalities seeking to exercise land acquisition rights under the Massachusetts Chapter Land statutes, G.L. c.61, 61A and 61B.

Attorney Pucci also assists municipalities in complying with the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law, Public Records, and Conflict of Interest Law, as well as assisting them in crafting public relations and policy pronouncements, press releases, risk management decisions, drafting town meeting warrant articles, and zoning bylaw amendments.

As principal in charge of the firm’s tax title practice, Attorney Pucci leads a team which specializes in the efficient resolution of real estate tax delinquencies. Attorney Pucci’s team assists municipalities in every step of the process, from initial demand letters and takings, title reviews and diligent search activities, Land Court foreclosure actions, and post-judgment disposition of foreclosed properties.

Attorney Pucci’s practice also includes insurance defense litigation, contract disputes, and general practice civil litigation. Additionally, he has substantial experience defending serious personal injury cases, including cases involving premises liability claims, negligent security, motor vehicle accidents, miscellaneous tort and general liability claims. He also heads our private client practice, successfully litigating real estate, contract, and business disputes for private parties in cases which do not involve municipalities.

Prior to joining Kopelman and Paige, Attorney Pucci had 10 years of experience as an insurance defense litigator and trial attorney for a Boston insurance defense firm, specializing in construction accident litigation, personal injury defense, and defense of professional liability and Chapter 93A claims.

Representative Matters

• Regis College v. Weston, et al., 17 Mass. Land Court Rptr. 79 (2010). Obtained summary judgment for the Town of Weston and Weston Zoning Board of Appeals, affirming the denial of the plaintiff’s proposal to construct 362 luxury residential units for senior citizens on its Weston Campus along with other educational facilities spread among eight buildings, on the grounds that the proposal would not constitute an educational use protected by the Dover Amendment since its dominant purpose was not educational. The proposal would have required elderly residents to take four college courses a year and to pay a one-time fee of $700,000-$1 million, 90% refundable upon leaving the facility, with a monthly service fee of $4,000. The Court (Sands, J.) accepted the Town’s summary judgment argument that the financial components of the project “dwarfed” any educational components, that the entrance and service fees were far in excess of the cost of the educational programs provided, that two-thirds of the square footage in the project would be dedicated to housing, and that the seriousness of the academic component was questionable given its lack of any matriculation requirements and the fact that the courses were not designed to help the residents attain independent living.
  
• Plymouth v. Boston Edison Co., 71 Mass. App. Ct. 1107 (2008). Successfully appealed an adverse summary judgment decision ruling that an easement which was granted to Boston Edison in the 1960’s to allow construction of lines for the transmission of electricity, including lines for “communication, signal and control purposes,” entitled Edison’s successor, NSTAR, to lease space to wireless telecommunications carriers on infrastructure located in the area of easement. Ultimately reached a mutually beneficial settlement agreement with NSTAR, by which the Town agreed to amend the easement to expressly allow the continued operation of wireless telecommunications facilities in the area of easement, and NSTAR agreed to pay the Town a specified percentage of all past and future revenue derived from its leases with wireless telecommunications carriers operating out of the area of easement.
• City of Springfield Tax Title. As one of three outside firms providing tax title collection and litigation services to the City of Springfield, Attorney Pucci’s tax title team has successfully resolved more than 600 tax delinquencies, assisting the City in recovering many millions of dollars in otherwise lost tax revenue.
• Winchendon v. Dillon Investments, LLC, Lawyers Weekly No. 14-147-08 (Land Court, Scheier, C.J., October 30, 2008). Prevailed at trial of the Town’s claim seeking specific performance of an option to purchase more than 700 acres of valuable forestry land under G.L. c. 61. Defeated the defendant/developer’s arguments that 1) the Town waived its specific performance rights by accepting the developer’s payment of roll-back taxes and re-classifying the property as unrestricted land after the developer’s purchase of the property, and 2) that if the Town were to prevail on its specific performance claim, the land had a fair market value of $1.8 million, versus the $1.2 million dollar purchase price which was tendered by the Town.
• Middleborough v. Freitas. Successfully litigated a vigorously contested Chapter 61A agricultural land case as special counsel for the Town of Middleborough, arguing that an owner’s “indicia of intent” to convert protected, agricultural land for future development as a residential subdivision was enough to trigger the Town’s specific performance rights under G.L. c.61A. Ultimately reached a favorable settlement which enabled the Town to partner with The Nature Conservancy and the homeowner, in order to preserve an historic agricultural landscape along the Nemasket River in Southeastern Massachusetts.
• Winchendon v. Boyd. Obtained $583,706 in settlement of a contested Land Court foreclosure action, including 16% interest and attorneys’ fees, after defeating the defendant/developer’s summary judgment argument that a flaw in the Town’s original notice of taking voided any foreclosure action against subsequent purchasers until the tax taking process was initiated anew.
• Adams Road Trust v. Grafton Board of Appeals. Successfully defended the Grafton Zoning Board of Appeals in a seven day trial of a developer’s appeal of a G.L. c.40B comprehensive permit decision. Obtained a ruling from the State’s Housing Appeals Committee upholding the validity of the Board’s denial of extension of Town water to the proposed 40B development on the grounds that the proposed extended water line would result in an increased likelihood of development through an area where the Town had intended to preserve rural character for open space purposes and natural resource protection, and that local needs thus outweighed the need for affordable housing with respect to the water line issue.
• Dedham v. Home Depot. Obtained $178,548 for the Town of Dedham in settlement of a breach of contract claim in order to fund engineering analyses to determine the extent of roadway and infrastructure improvements necessitated by a box-store commercial development.
• Bakis v. Pagounis, Norfolk Superior Court (Brassard, J., 2003). Obtained $900,000 in settlement of a counterclaim asserted in defense of a commercial real estate contract dispute after three days of trial.
• Hopedale v. Alderman & MacNeish, Inc. 2001 WL 544024, 13 Mass.L.Rptr. 91 (Mass.Super.2001). Obtained $140,000 in settlement of an architectural malpractice claim after a successful summary judgment ruling in which the Court accepted the Town’s argument that the defendant architect was subject to a six year statute of limitations governing contract actions for breach of express warranties, versus the three year limitations period ordinarily applicable to professional negligence claims, based upon the architect’s acceptance of a higher standard of care than that contained in the standard AIA contract.

Memberships & Affiliations

• Massachusetts Bar Association, Civil Litigation Section
• Massachusetts Municipal Association
• Conservation Commission, Town of Sherborn (2003-2009)
• Selectman, Town of Sherborn (2009-Present)

Bar & Court Admissions

• Massachusetts Bar, 1989
• New York Bar, 1990
• U.S. District Court (Mass.), 2000

Education

Hofstra University School of Law
Juris Doctor, 1989

University of Massachusetts
Bachelor of Arts, 1986

< Prev		Next >