seal

Court Case Record 278 LAFAYETTE STREET vs. GEORGIA CLARKE 2012-J-0447 UID(ee80)


278 LAFAYETTE STREET vs. GEORGIA CLARKE Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2012-J-0447


 
Case Number2012-J-0447
Case Title278 LAFAYETTE STREET vs. GEORGIA CLARKE
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyHousing . Northeast
CourtHousing Court. Northeast
Court Address
Phone
Field Date12/06/2012
Close Date01/16/2013

Parties

CounselNameType
Judy A. Field, Esquire278 Lafayette StreetPlaintiff/Respondent
Rosemary McAuliffe, EsquireGeorgia ClarkeDefendant/Petitioner
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
12/06/2012 #1 Motion to waive entry fee, filed by Georgia Clarke, is allowed.^
12/06/2012 #2 Motion to docket appeal late, filed by Georgia Clarke.^
12/06/2012 #3 Motion to appeal decision and order of the Northeast Housing Court, filed by Georgia Clarke.^
12/11/2012 #4 ORDER: Defendant seeks to docket her appeal beyond the ten day period of time provided under Mass.R.A.P. 10(a)(1). The motion to docket late is denied without prejudice to renewal on or before December 31, 2012 accompanied by a memorandum that establishes (1) excusable neglect for the late docketing and (2) a meritorious appellate issue. (Sikora, J.). *Notice/Attest/Kerman, J.
12/31/2012 #5 Motion to renew appeal to docket late, filed by Georgia Clarke. ^
01/16/2013 #6 ORDER: Upon consideration of the memorandum submitted on December 31, 2012, by counsel for Georgia Clarke (in response to this court's earlier order of December 11, 2012), I must DENY the request for leave to docket the proposed appeal late. Massachusetts R.A.P. 10(a)(3) permits a single justice "for cause shown" to permit an appeal to be docketing out of time. A single justice will consider such a request in light of (a) the duration of tardiness, (b) the presence of excusable neglect, and (c) the presence of a potentially meritorious appellate issue. After careful consideration of the present request under those criteria, I cannot locate justification for a late docketing. (a) The tardiness is substantial, more than eighty days. (b) The memorandum of December 31, 2012, does not identify any excusable neglect. (c) No potentially meritorious appellate issue appears in the memorandum. (Sikora, J.) *Notice/Attest/Kerman, J.