I suppose . . . IF the problem was severe and if the broker knew about it.  But that seems like a couple of big ifs.  940 CMR 3.16(2) (a Massachusetts regulation) places the following burdens on brokers and agents:
 
A. A licensee must disclose all facts to a buyer or prospective buyer that might influence their decision to buy whether or not the buyer asks.
B. A previous sale that was aborted by a prospective buyer due to the content of a home inspection must be disclosed to all subsequent prospective buyers.
 
I believe the case law in Massachusetts has interpreted this regulation as requiring a broker to answer questions truthfully, and to disclose obvious problems that he is aware of, including off-site problems.  For example, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held that brokers or agents should disclose off-site conditions that are  “unknown and not readily observable by the buyer [and] if the existence of those conditions is of sufficient materiality to affect the habitability, use, or enjoyment of the property and, therefore, render the property substantially less desirable or valuable to the objectively reasonable buyer.”
 
But how far can a broker go?  Should he or she sleep outside the condo for a night and watch for problems, or interview every neighbor for potentially problematic behavior?  (Follow this link for a story in the Boston Globe about a claim similar to yours (second hand smoke) that was rejected by a Massachusetts Jury.)
 
I think you should approach your problem in a different way, through the Condominium Association (for violation of the condo rules or bylaws), or by contacting the police (for violation of local noise ordinances.)  Good luck.