Statkiewicz v. Zermani

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Statkiewicz v. Zermani

956 N.E.2d 1222, 460 Mass. 1018, 2011 Mass. LEXIS 981

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 9, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 956 N.E.2d 1222 (Statkiewicz v. Zermani) 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

Statkiewicz v. Zermani, 956 N.E.2d 1222, 460 Mass. 1018, 2011 Mass. LEXIS 981 (Mass. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

William Statkiewicz appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying, without a hearing, his petition for extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. Statkiewicz sought relief from an order of a judge in the Housing Court denying his motion to waive an appeal bond in connection with an appeal from a summary process judgment. Relief was properly denied, as Statkiewicz had one or more adequate alternative remedies. Indeed, he had pursued one such remedy, an appeal to a single justice of the Appeals Court. G. L. c. 239, § 5 (f). “The proper course for [him] to have followed, if [he] wished further to challenge the bond, was to refuse to pay the bond, suffer the dismissal of [his] summary process appeal, and then appeal to the Appeals Court (on the limited bond issue) from the order of dismissal.” Matter of an Appeal Bond (No. 1), 428 Mass. 1013, 1013 (1998), citing Ford v. Braman, 30 Mass. App. Ct. 968, 970 (1991).

Judgment affirmed.

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

William Statkiewicz appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying, without a hearing, his petition for extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. Statkiewicz sought relief from an order of a judge in the Housing Court denying his motion to waive an appeal bond in connection with an appeal from a summary process judgment. Relief was properly denied, as Statkiewicz had one or more adequate alternative remedies. Indeed, he had pursued one such remedy, an appeal to a single justice of the Appeals Court. G. L. c. 239, § 5 (f). “The proper course for [him] to have followed, if [he] wished further to challenge the bond, was to refuse to pay the bond, suffer the dismissal of [his] summary process appeal, and then appeal to the Appeals Court (on the limited bond issue) from the order of dismissal.” Matter of an Appeal Bond (No. 1), 428 Mass. 1013, 1013 (1998), citing Ford v. Braman, 30 Mass. App. Ct. 968, 970 (1991).

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

956 N.E.2d 1222, 460 Mass. 1018, 2011 Mass. LEXIS 981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/statkiewicz-v-zermani-mass-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack