Flavia Benitez v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.
This text of Flavia Benitez v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. (Flavia Benitez v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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-64
FLAVIA BENITEZ1
vs.
MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
On November 14, 2023, after a bench trial, a Superior Court
judge entered judgment dismissing plaintiff Flavia Benitez's
claim for negligence against the Massachusetts Bay Transit
Authority (MBTA). The plaintiff subsequently filed three
motions for a new trial.2 The judge denied the first two motions
for procedural defects and denied the third motion on the
merits, in a written decision entered on December 21, 2023. The
plaintiff then filed a number of motions concerning the trial
transcript, exhibits, and appellate record resulting in, as
1 A self-represented litigant.
2The plaintiff filed the first motion on November 20, 2023, the second motion on December 5, 2023, and the third motion on December 19, 2023. relevant here, a June 16, 2025 order partially denying her
motion to correct the appellate record. The plaintiff now
appeals from the judgment, from the order denying her third
motion for a new trial, and from so much of the June 16, 2025
order that denied her motion to correct the appellate record.
We dismiss the plaintiff's appeal from the November 14, 2023
judgment as untimely; affirm the December 21, 2023 order denying
the plaintiff's motion for a new trial; and dismiss, as moot,
the appeal from the June 16, 2025 order partially denying the
plaintiff's motion to correct the appellate record.
Discussion. 1. Plaintiff's appeal from the judgment. "A
timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite to our
authority to consider any matter on appeal." DeLucia v. Kfoury,
93 Mass. App. Ct. 166, 170 (2018). A party generally must file
an appeal from a judgment in a civil action within thirty days
of the entry of judgment, but that thirty-day period is tolled
if a motion listed within rule 4 (a) (2) of the Massachusetts
Rules of Appellate Procedure is made or served in a timely
manner. Mass. R. A. P. 4 (a) (1)-(2), as appearing in 481 Mass.
1606 (2019). "Any motion for a new trial filed after the period
set out by Mass. R. Civ. P. 59 (b)[, 365 Mass. 827 (1974),]
would have to be considered as falling within Mass. R. Civ. P.
60 (b), 365 Mass. 828 (1974)." Stephens v. Global NAPs, 70
Mass. App. Ct. 676, 682 (2007). Rule 60 (b) motions do not toll
2 the thirty-day period unless they are "served within 10 days
after entry of judgment." Mass. R. A. P. 4 (a) (2) (A) (iii).
See Stephens, supra.
On January 4, 2024, the plaintiff filed her first notice of
appeal from the judgment entered on November 14, 2023. She then
filed a second notice of appeal on January 16, 2024, from the
judgment and from the denial of her motion for a new trial on
December 21, 2023. Because the judgment entered on November 14,
2023, the plaintiff's notices of appeal would only be timely if
her first new trial motion tolled the thirty-day appeal period.
See Mass. R. A. P. 4 (a) (2) (A) (iii).
The judge denied the plaintiff's first motion for a new
trial "for failure to comply with Rule 9A," and dismissed her
second motion for a new trial because "The Plaintiff cannot rely
on defective service from an already DENIED Motion." Because
the plaintiff failed to properly serve her first two new trial
motions, those motions did not toll the thirty-day appeal
period. The plaintiff's third motion for a new trial, though
apparently served, was too late to toll the thirty-day period.
Mass. R. A. P. 4 (a) (2) (A) (iii); Stephens, 70 Mass. App. Ct.
at 682. We therefore dismiss the plaintiff's appeal from the
judgment.
2. Third motion for a new trial. "An appellant's
obligation to include . . . copies of motions which are
3 essential for review of the issues raised on appeal . . . is a
fundamental and long-standing rule of appellate civil practice"
(quotation and citation omitted). Cameron v. Carelli, 39 Mass.
App. Ct. 81, 84 (1995). See Mass. R. A. P. 8 (a)-(c), as
appearing in 481 Mass. 1611 (2019); Mass. R. A. P. 18 (a), as
appearing in 481 Mass. 1637 (2019).
Although the plaintiff provided the defendant's opposition
to her motion, the plaintiff did not provide the motion itself.3
See Cameron, 39 Mass. App. Ct. at 84. To attempt to review the
merits of her argument without the motion itself would require
us to speculate as to the legal and factual bases for the
plaintiff's motion, which we will not do. See DosSantos v. Beth
Israel Deaconess Hosp.-Milton, Inc., 497 Mass. 34, 43 (2026)
(Supreme Judicial Court unwilling to speculate on content of
documents not in the record appendix); Cameron, supra.
Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the plaintiff's third
motion for new trial.
3. Motion to correct the appellate record. "A moot case
is one where a court can order no further effective relief"
(quotation and citation omitted). Branch v. Commonwealth
Employment Relations Bd., 481 Mass. 810, 817 (2019). Because we
3 The plaintiff's motion to correct the appellate record does not address the absence of the motion for a new trial in the appellate record.
4 address the plaintiff's arguments challenging the final
disposition of her claim for negligence on grounds unrelated to
the motion to correct the appellate record, any relief regarding
the plaintiff's motion to correct the appellate record would
have no practical effect. See id. We accordingly dismiss, as
moot, the plaintiff's appeal from the June 16, 2025 order
partially denying the plaintiff's motion to correct the
appellate record.
Conclusion. The plaintiff's appeals from the November 14,
2023 judgment and the June 16, 2025 order partially denying the
plaintiff's motion to correct the appellate record are
dismissed. The December 21, 2023 order denying the plaintiff's
motion for a new trial is affirmed.
So ordered.
By the Court (Desmond, Hershfang & Brennan, JJ.4),
Clerk
Entered: March 17, 2026.
4 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Flavia Benitez v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flavia-benitez-v-massachusetts-bay-transportation-authority-massappct-2026.