USCA1 Opinion

        September 28, 1992      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]






                                 ____________________


        No. 92-1097 

                          BAY FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ET AL.,
                                       Debtors,
                                                
                                      __________

                                LOLI V. GREGOR, D/B/A
                                    HSIN-MEI, CO.,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                          THE NEWPORT INN JOINT VENTURE AND
                     BAY FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES,

                                Defendants, Appellees.
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
                                        _____________

                                 ____________________

            Loli V. Gregor on brief pro se.
            ______________
            Jack Weinberg and Graubard,  Mollen, Horowitz, Pomeranz  & Shapiro
            _____________     ________________________________________________
        on  brief for  appellees,  The  Newport  Inn  Joint  Venture  and  Bay
        Financial Corporation and Subsidiaries.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________



















                      Per Curiam.  The judgment of  the district court is
                      __________

            affirmed  for  the reasons  stated  in  the district  court's
            ________

            December 19, 1991 memorandum and order.















































                                         -2-