CITY OF GARDNER v. LAWRENCE PETRICCA, SR., Trustee, & Another.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: March 25, 2026
• Docket: 25-P-0636
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

25-P-636

CITY OF GARDNER

vs.

LAWRENCE PETRICCA, SR., trustee, 1 & another. 2

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

Eldorado Canyon Properties, LLC (Eldorado), which describes

itself as an "interested party/appellant," appeals pursuant to

Rule 15.0 (b) (2) (A) of the Rules of the Appeals Court, as

appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1010 (2020), from the order of a

single justice that denied its motion for reconsideration of an

administrative order dismissing an earlier appeal in this court.

We affirm.

The earlier appeal, Appeals Court docket no. 24-P-869, was

docketed in July 2024. On September 24, 2024, the clerk entered

a notice preceding dismissal. On October 17, 2024, the appeal

1 Of the L & L Realty Trust.

2 Eldorado Canyon Properties, LLC, interested party. was administratively dismissed for failure to prosecute under

Rule 19.0 of the Rules of the Appeals Court, as appearing in 97

Mass. App. Ct. 1012 (2020) (M.A.C. Rule 19.0). On October 21,

Eldorado moved to reinstate the appeal, and that motion was

allowed. After Eldorado failed to timely file its brief and

record appendix, a second administrative dismissal process

commenced. Eldorado then sought an enlargement of time to file

its brief and appendix, which was allowed to March 31, 2025.

Eldorado did not file its brief or appendix by that deadline,

however, and on April 9, 2025, the single justice directed the

clerk to issue a notice of dismissal of the appeal pursuant to

M.A.C. Rule 19.0 (a) (3), which the clerk did the same day. On

April 23, Eldorado moved for reconsideration of that

administrative order of dismissal. On April 30, the single

justice denied the motion for reconsideration because Eldorado

had not served and filed a motion to reinstate the appeal and

for leave to file a late brief and appendix, or the brief and

appendix themselves. See M.A.C. Rule 19 (c). The clerk issued

a notice of dismissal of the appeal to the trial court that same

day. Eldorado now appeals from the single justice's order dated

April 30, 2025, denying its motion for reconsideration.

"At the outset, it is important to keep in mind that we

review the action of the single justice for errors of law and,

if none appear, for abuse of discretion." Troy Indus., Inc. v.

2 Samson Mfg. Corp., 76 Mass. App. Ct. 575, 581 (2010). "[A]

judge's discretionary decision constitutes an abuse of

discretion where we conclude the judge made a clear error of

judgment in weighing the factors relevant to the decision, such

that the decision falls outside the range of reasonable

alternatives" (quotation and citation omitted). L.L. v.

Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169, 185 n.27 (2014).

Eldorado maintains that the single justice violated Mass.

R. A. P. 15 (c), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1627 (2019), which

provides that a single justice "may not dismiss or otherwise

determine an appeal." That limitation, however, does not

preclude the single justice from enforcing the procedural rules

that govern the appellate process. See DeLucia v. Kfoury, 93

Mass. App. Ct. 166, 168-169 (2018). The order of the single

justice challenged by Eldorado did not dismiss or otherwise

determine an appeal, but rather denied Eldorado's motion to

reconsider an earlier administrative order dismissing its appeal

for lack of prosecution. The single justice acted within her

authority in denying that motion because Eldorado failed to

comply with the requirements for reinstating an appeal under

M.A.C. Rule 19.0 (c). That rule provides that, prior to the

expiration of fourteen days from the clerk's entry of notice of

dismissal of the appeal, the appellant must serve and file

"(1) a motion to reinstate the appeal and for leave to file a

3 late brief or appendix or status report and (2) the brief or

appendix or status report (whichever documents are overdue)."

M.A.C. Rule 19.0 (c). Eldorado did not serve and file any of

those documents. Indeed, as the single justice noted in an

earlier order, Eldorado did not file its brief or record

appendix despite having received "more than 150 days of

enlargements." Nor did Eldorado demonstrate that its delay was

caused by excusable neglect, a showing that must be made before

a single justice may grant the "extraordinary request" of a

motion to reinstate an appeal. See Howard v. Boston Water &

Sewer Comm'n, 96 Mass. App. Ct. 119, 122-123 (2019).

Accordingly, the single justice did not err or abuse her

discretion in denying Eldorado's motion for reconsideration.

Because this appeal concerns only the single justice's order

denying its motion for reconsideration in the earlier appeal, we

4 do not address Eldorado's arguments concerning the underlying

Land Court proceeding.

Order of single justice denying motion for reconsideration affirmed.

By the Court (Henry, Shin & Toone, JJ. 3),

Clerk

Entered: March 25, 2026.

3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.