R.A. v. W.R.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

R.A. v. W.R.

DecidedOctober 31, 2024

Docket24-P-0164

StatusUnpublished

This text of R.A. v. W.R. (R.A. v. W.R.) 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.

Bluebook

R.A. v. W.R., (Mass. Ct. App. 2024).

Pincite

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

24-P-164

R.A.

vs.

W.R.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The defendant, W.R., appeals from an order of a Boston

Municipal Court judge extending a harassment prevention order

for one year issued after notice and a hearing pursuant to G. L.

c. 258E, § 3. We affirm.

The defendant "contends that the trial court erred in its

acceptance of [the plaintiff's] claims without scrutinizing the

veracity and motivations behind them." Specifically, the

defendant asserts that the plaintiff lied about the plaintiff's

job title, falsely accused him of creating bombs,1 inaccurately

1As a matter of fact, the plaintiff testified that the defendant "made several allegations about pressure cooker bombs," not that the plaintiff had manufactured any bombs. described him as stalking the plaintiff's residence, and was

motivated by a desire to divert attention from the defendant's

whistleblower claims. All of these claims, however, are

supported only by the defendant's own testimony and a number of

highly ambiguous exhibits.

"Our role as a reviewing court is not to reassess

credibility determinations made by the hearing judge."

Constance C. v. Raymond R., 101 Mass. App. Ct. 390, 397 (2022).

"We accord the credibility determinations of the judge who

'heard the testimony of the parties . . . [and] observed their

demeanor' . . . the utmost deference." Yahna Y. v. Sylvester

S., 97 Mass. App. Ct. 184, 185 (2020), quoting Ginsberg v.

Blacker, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 139, 140 n.3 (2006). We are in no

position to second guess the judge's credibility determinations

2 on a cold transcript without seeing the witnesses and how they

testified. Accordingly, we cannot disturb the judge's order.

Order entered November 20, 2023, affirmed.

By the Court (Blake, Ditkoff & D'Angelo, JJ.2),

Clerk

Entered: October 31, 2024.

2 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

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

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).