DomVincent, LLC v. Town of Derry

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2014-0217, DomVincent, LLC v. Town of Derry,
the court on February 20, 2015, issued the following order:

Having considered the briefs and record submitted on appeal, we conclude
that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.

The appellant, DomVincent, LLC, appeals orders of the Superior Court
(Wageling, J.): (1) dismissing for lack of standing its appeal of a decision by the
zoning board of adjustment (ZBA) of the appellee, the Town of Derry, see RSA
677:4 (Supp. 2014); and (2) striking the appearance of Steven Trefethen and
requiring it to have an attorney or other individual appear on its behalf, see RSA
311:7 (2005). DomVincent argues that the trial court: (1) erred by raising, sua
sponte, the issue of DomVincent’s standing and finding, after a hearing regarding
its standing, that DomVincent lacked standing and that such a finding was not
barred by equitable doctrines; (2) erred by striking Trefethen’s appearance after
the trial court dismissed the action because DomVincent claims that the trial
court then lacked subject matter jurisdiction; and (3) denied Trefethen’s due
process rights by precluding him from representing DomVincent and erred by
finding that Trefethen was not representing himself, that he appeared commonly,
and that res judicata did not establish his right to represent DomVincent before
the trial court in this matter.

As the appealing party, DomVincent has the burden of demonstrating
reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. ___, ___, 103 A.3d 1183, 1186 (2014).
Based upon our review of the trial court’s orders, DomVincent’s challenges to
them, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that
DomVincent has not demonstrated reversible error. See id.

Affirmed.

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk