Gordon v. Pantos Canvas Corp.

1983 Mass. App. Div. 26, 4 Mass. Supp. 259, 1983 Mass. App. Div. LEXIS 4
CourtMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division
DecidedFebruary 10, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 1983 Mass. App. Div. 26 (Gordon v. Pantos Canvas Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gordon v. Pantos Canvas Corp., 1983 Mass. App. Div. 26, 4 Mass. Supp. 259, 1983 Mass. App. Div. LEXIS 4 (Mass. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

Forte, J.

This appeal is before the Appellate Division on a report from the Second Eastern Middlesex Division.

At the close of the evidence at trial, the defendant filed requests, for rulings [27]*27which the court denied in part. On April 16, 1981, the court's findings were filed and on April 21, judgment was entered in the docket. On April 30, 1981, the defendant timely filed a claim of report and a motion for a new trial. The denial of the motion for a new trial was docketed on May 15, 1981. On May 26, 1981, the defendant’s draft report was filed.

Dist./Mun. R. Civ. P., Rule 64(c)(ii) requires draft reports to be filed within ten (10) days after entry of judgment. Wing v. Liziewski, 59 Mass. App. Dec. 30 (1976). However, the filing of a motion for a new trial tolls the time for filing of the draft report. Dist./Mun. R. Div. P. Rule 64(c)(iii) and the full time (ten days) for filing draft reports "shall commence to run and shall be computed from the entry of any of the following orders made upon a timely motion under such rules: ... (3) denying a motion for a new trial under Rule 59.” Rule 64(c)(iii).

When the denial of the motion for a new trial was docketed on May 15,1981, the ten days to file a draft report began to toll. The draft report was not filed until the eleventh day thereafter and no motion was filed or allowed to extend the time for filing.

The draft report not having been filed timely is to be dismissed. Locke v. Slater, 387 Mass. 682 (1982); Wing v. Liziewski, supra.

Report dimissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Patrick v. Opert
1987 Mass. App. Div. 213 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1987)
Konieczny v. Robert P. Sullivan, Inc.
1987 Mass. App. Div. 11 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1987)
Sachdev v. Demeris
1986 Mass. App. Div. 136 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1986)
Eastern Tank of Peabody, Inc. v. Moore
1986 Mass. App. Div. 58 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1986)
Cutler Construction, Inc. v. Omni Builders, Inc.
1985 Mass. App. Div. 109 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1985)
Barry v. Connolly
1985 Mass. App. Div. 77 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1983 Mass. App. Div. 26, 4 Mass. Supp. 259, 1983 Mass. App. Div. LEXIS 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordon-v-pantos-canvas-corp-massdistctapp-1983.