Zullo v. Culik Law P.C.

5 N.E.3d 1203, 467 Mass. 1009, 2014 WL 982835, 2014 Mass. LEXIS 133
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 17, 2014
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 5 N.E.3d 1203 (Zullo v. Culik Law P.C.) 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
Zullo v. Culik Law P.C., 5 N.E.3d 1203, 467 Mass. 1009, 2014 WL 982835, 2014 Mass. LEXIS 133 (Mass. 2014).

Opinion

John Zullo appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. Zullo commenced an action in the small claims session of the District Court against his former attorney and law firm. Judgment entered for the defendants. Zullo’s petition sought relief from that judgment. We have repeatedly stated that a plaintiff who chooses to proceed in the small claims session waives the right to appeal from any adverse judgment, and likewise is not entitled to invoke this court’s extraordinary power of general superintendence in lieu of an appeal to compel review of the judgment. See Tessema v. Nextel Sys. Corp., 451 Mass. 1007, [1010]*10101007-1008 (2008); Stevenson v. Mackey, 450 Mass. 1014, 1015 (2007); Pan-dey v. Ware Div. of the Dist. Court Dep’t, 412 Mass. 1002, 1003 (1992) (“by choosing to pursue their claim as plaintiffs in the small claims session, the plaintiffs waived their right to appeal from any adverse rulings . . . [and] where the plaintiffs chose to pursue the small claims procedure which is ‘not exclusive but an alternative to the formal procedure of the District Court,’ ... the single justice was warranted in refusing to grant relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3”). As in each of those cases, the single justice here was warranted in declining to grant extraordinary relief.

John F. Zullo, pro se. Josef C. Culik for the defendants.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Mullane v. Barclays Bank Delaware
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2019
Mullane v. Barclays Bank Del.
116 N.E.3d 1217 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2019)
Taylor-Cameron v. Walcott
116 N.E.3d 1210 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2019)
Chanowski v. Bourne
2014 Mass. App. Div. 137 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 2014)
Trustees of Rhoda 27 Condominium Trust v. Orchi
2014 Mass. App. Div. 85 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 N.E.3d 1203, 467 Mass. 1009, 2014 WL 982835, 2014 Mass. LEXIS 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zullo-v-culik-law-pc-mass-2014.