Court Case Record COMMONWEALTH vs. KENNETH OSBORNE 2012-J-0011


Court Case Number: 2012-J-0011

Case Number2012-J-0011
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CourtSuffolk Superior Court
Court Address
Field Date01/06/2012
Close Date02/02/2012


Mindy S. Klenoff, Assistant District AttorneyCommonwealthPlaintiff/Respondent
J. Daniel Silverman, EsquireKenneth OsborneDefendant/Petitioner
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
01/06/2012 #1 Affidavit of counsel filed by J. Daniel Sivlerman, Esquire.
01/06/2012 #2 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 with attachments, filed by Kenneth Osborne.
01/06/2012 #3 Motion to impound, filed by Kenneth Osborne.
01/06/2012 #4 Notice of appeal to single justice, filed by Kenneth Osborne.
01/06/2012 #5 RE#1: The within is treated as petitioner's motion to waive the entry fee and enter the petition and is allowed as of 01/05/12, contingent upon petitioner filing documentation as to his indigency, and a petition pursuant to G.Lc. 231, §118 (first par.) in conformance with this court's standing order of 6/1/11 on or before 01/09/12 (Grainger, J.). *Notice.
01/25/2012 #6 RE#3: Cases of this nature are not required to be impounded by the governing statute. Further, the Superior Court's docket contains no order of judge impounding the case. See Trial Court Rule VIII, Rule 8. *Notice.
01/25/2012 RE#4: As petitioner has not complied with this court's 1/6/12 order on paper #1, no further action will be taken on the petition, and the matter is closed. Court-ordered sanctions may be reviewed on appeal following final judgment (Grainger, J.). *Notice/Attest.
01/27/2012 Motion to reopen appeal to single justice because of erroneous information received from the Clerk's Office, filed by Kenneth Osborne. ^
02/02/2012 ORDER: The instant petition is treated as a motion for reconsideration of the single justice's January 25, 2012 order on paper #4 and, despite petitioner's having failed to comply with this court's standing order governing the filing of petitions, is allowed. Upon reconsideration, the requested relief is denied. G. L. c. 231, § 118 (first par.) requires that a petition be filed in the Appeals Court within thirty days of the entry date of the order sought to be reviewed, and the single justice has no authority to enlarge this statutory time limit. Cf. Friedman v. Board of Regis. in Medicine, 414 Mass. 663, 665 (1993); Nissan Motor Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 407 Mass. 153, 157 (1990); Flynn v. CRAB, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 668, 669-670 (1984). The filing of a motion for reconsideration does not enlarge the thirty day period set forth in the statute. See McGrath v. McGrath, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 670, 671 (2006). Review of the propriety of an order may not be had in the absence of changed circumstances by simply moving for reconsideration and then seeking review of the denial of the motion. Manousous v. Sarkis, 382 Mass. 317, 322-323 (1981). Consequently, since the petition was filed well outside thirty days of the trial judge's November 21, 2011 order, the petition is untimely insofar as it essentially seeks review of that order and requests as relief that the order be vacated. The petitioner has made no showing of changed circumstances, particularly as it appears the issues surrounding the earlier motion and the motion for reconsideration were identical. To the extent petitioner seeks review of the denial of his motion for reconsideration below, I find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, and the petition is denied. (Grainger, J.) *Notice/Attest/MacLeod-Mancuso, J.