Schifano v. Razzaboni

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Schifano v. Razzaboni

995 N.E.2d 795, 466 Mass. 1006, 2013 WL 4870206, 2013 Mass. LEXIS 712

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedSeptember 16, 2013

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 995 N.E.2d 795 (Schifano v. Razzaboni) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schifano v. Razzaboni, 995 N.E.2d 795, 466 Mass. 1006, 2013 WL 4870206, 2013 Mass. LEXIS 712 (Mass. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Frank Schifano appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. He challenges an order of a judge in the District Court that, among other things, declared him to be in contempt of a prior order that he make payments toward an outstanding judgment. The judge found that Schifano had the ability to pay. She also ordered that Schifano be jailed if he failed to pay a certain amount by a given date. It appears, however, that although Schifano has not paid that amount, he has not been jailed. We affirm the judgment.

In supplementary process proceedings such as these, “[tjhere shall be no appeal from any judgment, order or sentence.” G. L. c. 224, § 18. While this does not deprive us of our extraordinary power under G. L. c. 211, § 3, “we will rarely employ our superintendence power to review rulings where the Legislature has expressly stated that there shall be no appeal.” Birchall, petitioner, 454 Mass. 837, 846 (2009). The Birchall case was “precisely the kind of rare case that may justify the exercise of superintendence power” because there, the petitioner had been incarcerated for his contempt. Id. at 847. That is not the case here, as Schifano has not been incarcerated. The single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion by declining to exercise this court’s extraordinary superintendence power in these circumstances.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Frank Schifano appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. He challenges an order of a judge in the District Court that, among other things, declared him to be in contempt of a prior order that he make payments toward an outstanding judgment. The judge found that Schifano had the ability to pay. She also ordered that Schifano be jailed if he failed to pay a certain amount by a given date. It appears, however, that although Schifano has not paid that amount, he has not been jailed. We affirm the judgment.

In supplementary process proceedings such as these, “[tjhere shall be no appeal from any judgment, order or sentence.” G. L. c. 224, § 18. While this does not deprive us of our extraordinary power under G. L. c. 211, § 3, “we will rarely employ our superintendence power to review rulings where the Legislature has expressly stated that there shall be no appeal.” Birchall, petitioner, 454 Mass. 837, 846 (2009). The Birchall case was “precisely the kind of rare case that may justify the exercise of superintendence power” because there, the petitioner had been incarcerated for his contempt. Id. at 847. That is not the case here, as Schifano has not been incarcerated. The single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion by declining to exercise this court’s extraordinary superintendence power in these circumstances.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

995 N.E.2d 795, 466 Mass. 1006, 2013 WL 4870206, 2013 Mass. LEXIS 712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schifano-v-razzaboni-mass-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack