seal

Court Case Record CHRISTINE O''BRIEN vs. JANCATERINO REALTY TRUST & others 2012-J-0381 UID(d869)


CHRISTINE O''BRIEN vs. JANCATERINO REALTY TRUST & others Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2012-J-0381


 
Case Number2012-J-0381
Case TitleCHRISTINE O''BRIEN vs. JANCATERINO REALTY TRUST & others
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyNorfolk
CourtNorfolk Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date10/11/2012
Close Date10/17/2012

Parties

CounselNameType
Stephen John Guillette, EsquireChristine O'BrienPlaintiff/Respondent
David A. Brosnihan, EsquireJancaterino Realty TrustDefendant/Petitioner
David A. Brosnihan, EsquireR. Richard JancaterinoDefendant/Petitioner
David A. Brosnihan, EsquireDaniel E. JancaterinoDefendant/Petitioner
David A. Brosnihan, EsquireLaurie ProctorDefendant/Petitioner
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
10/11/2012 #1 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 with attachments, filed by Jancaterino Realty Trust, R. Richard Jancaterino, Daniel E. Jancaterino, Laurie Proctor.
10/15/2012 #2 Motion to dismiss the appeal of defendant/petitioner Jancaterino Realty Trust, filed by Christine O'Brien.^
10/17/2012 #3 RE#2: See court's 10/17/12 action on paper #1. *Notice/Attest/Connor, J.
10/17/2012 ORDER: On October 11, 2012, the defendants filed a petition, pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118 (first par.), seeking review of an order of the Norfolk Superior Court, entered June 7, 2012, in which the court allowed the plaintiff's motion to vacate judgment of dismissal. They also seek review of an order entered September 11, 2012, in which the court denied their motion for reconsideration of the June 7, 2012 order. The defendants failed to file a timely § 118 petition for review of the trial court's June 7, 2012 order. Although the defendants assert that they did not receive notice of the court's June 7, 2012 order until July 30, 2012, the operative date for the filing of a petition pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118 is when the court's order was entered on the docket. Nonetheless, in either event, the petition is untimely, since it was filed more than thirty (30) days after either date. The defendants did file a timely petition for review of their motion for reconsideration. The filing of a motion for reconsideration in the trial court does not toll or enlarge the thirty-day period set forth in G. L. c. 231, § 118 (first par.). See McGrath v. McGrath, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 670, 671 (2006). Moreover, as recognized by the trial court in its order denying their motion for reconsideration of the June 7, 2012 order, the defendants have not established that their motion for reconsideration raised any substantially new matter from that which was presented in the prior motion. Since the motion for reconsideration essentially sought review of the first order, the petition as to both orders is denied as untimely. See id. at 671-672; Manousos v. Sarkis, 382 Mass. 317, 322-323 (1981). The plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees is denied. (Sullivan, J.). *Notice/Attest/Connor, J.