of law relative to limitations of actions shall apply to a counterclaim by the defendant. The time of such limitation shall be computed as if an action had been commenced therefor at the time the plaintiffs action was commenced ...” I find that the defendants’ administrative remedies were not exhausted until the Board heard Lynette’s motion to reconsider. Where, as here, there are no written procedures for appealing a decision by a Board, a party adversely affected by the decision is entitled to rely on assurances by the Board that it will reconsider the petition. The Board’s final action for the purpose of computing the deadline to file a writ of certiorari was therefore the date of the promised reconsideration. See Gudanowski v. Town of Northbridge, 17 Mass.App.Ct. 414, 419 (1984) (<HOLDING>). The Town brought its action within two months
holding that the words proceeding complained of in glc 249 4 do not refer to the date that tax assessments were made or taxes billed where the plaintiffs subsequently filed applications for abatement of the assessments holding that permit fee assessments required by statute are not taxes under the code holding that background check assessments required by statute are not taxes under the code holding that the litigation privilege did not preclude a malicious prosecution claim where the accusatorial statements that led to the plaintiffs arrest were made before the charges against him were filed and were not made during and were unrelated to the judicial proceeding holding that a claim for breach of contract against a lawyer regarding estate taxes arose no later than the date on which the estate tax return was filed not when the alleged error was discovered