Court Case Number: 2010-J-0489

Case Number2010-J-0489
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
Court Address
Field Date10/26/2010
Close Date01/07/2011


John W. Collier, EsquireDomenic ZermaniPlaintiff/Respondent
William StatkiewiczPro Se Defendant/Petitioner
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
10/25/2010 #1 Appeal entered purs to G.L.c. 239, s.5 with attach.
10/25/2010 #2 ORDER FOR HEARING The parties are hereby notified that, pursuant to G. L. c. 239, § 5(g), a hearing will be held in the Massachusetts Appeals Court on Wednesday, November 3, 2010, at 2:30 PM in Courtroom 4, located at the John Adams Courthouse, Boston, regarding the defendant's appeal filed pursuant to G. L. c. 239, § 5(f). So ordered. By the Court (Green, J.) *Notice/Attest/Image.
10/26/2010 #3 Letter notice of 11/03/2010 hearing at 2:30 PM before Green, J. in Adams Courthouse, Ct Rm 4.
11/03/2010 #4 Hearing held.
11/03/2010 #5 Appearance of John W. Collier, Esquire for Domenic Zermani.
11/03/2010 #6 Appearance of William Statkiewicz, Pro Se.
11/04/2010 #7 ORDER: "This matter came before the single justice for hearing on November 3, 2010. The defendant asserts that the judge erred both in finding that he was not indigent and in finding that he has no non-frivolous defense. Passing on the question of the finding that the defendant was not indigent, I conclude that the judge was correct in concluding that there was no non-frivolous defense. At argument, the defendant challenged the judgment principally on the ground that the trial judge disregarded his claims that he was harassed by another tenant in his building and improperly credited false testimony by witnesses who testified on behalf of the plaintiff. However, assessment of credibility of witnesses at trial is a quintessential function of the trial judge and offers no prospect of relief on appeal. Based on her determination of the credibility of the various witnesses who testified at trial, the trial judge concluded that the defendant was properly served with notice to quit and that the landlord's action to recover possession was not retaliatory. Other than challenging the trial judge's findings in that regard, the defendant has offered no basis to challenge the judgment. Since, as observed above, any challenge to the trial judge's assessment of witness credibility would be frivolous, the defendant accordingly has no ground for a non-frivolous appeal. The order denying the motion to waive appeal bond is affirmed." (Green, J.) *Notice/attest/image/Muirhead, J.
11/10/2010 #8 Request for recognize and grant Notice of appeal, filed by William Statkiewicz.
11/24/2010 #9 ORDER: "...the notice of struck." (Cypher, J.) *Notice/Image.
12/03/2010 #10 Motion to reconsider paper #6 filed by William Statkiewicz.
12/07/2010 #11 RE#9: After reconsideration, the court's order entered on November 4, 2010, is to stand. The language of G. L. c. 239, §5, regarding review of a trial court judge's order setting an appeal bond, is explicit that the decision of the single justice is final. There is only one level of review of the appeal bond. Home Savings Bank v. Camillo, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 910, 911 (1998); Ford v. Braman, 30 Mass. App. Ct. 968, 970 (1991). All relief requested is denied (Cypher, J.). Notice/attest/Muirhead, J.
12/17/2010 #12 MOTION for stay under MRAP 6(A) w/attach, filed by William Statkiewicz.
12/17/2010 #13 ORDER: After review, the defendant's motion to stay issuance of the execution is denied because the defendant has failed to establish, as he must, that he has a reasonable likelihood of success on appeal. See Mass.R.A.P. 6(a); Packaging Indus. Group, Inc. v. Cheney, 380 Mass. 609, 617 (1980). Significantly, G. L. c. 239, § 5, does not provide for an appeal subsequent to the single justice's order of November 4, 2010. See Home Savings Bank v. Camillo, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 910, 911 (1998); Ford v. Braman, 30 Mass. App. Ct. 968, 970 (1991); see also G. L. c. 239, § 5(h). Two possible avenues of review are open to the defendant: (1) file the appeal bond in order to obtain full appellate review from a panel of the Appeals Court; or (2) allow his appeal to be dismissed and pursue limited appellate review of the bond issue. See Matter of an Appeal Bond (No. 1), 428 Mass. 1013 (1998); Ford v. Braman, 30 Mass. App. Ct. at 970 (noting speedy procedure contemplated by the Legislature). All relief requested is denied. (Cypher, J.). Notice/attest/Muirhead, J.
12/20/2010 #14 Motion to reconsider Emergency stay of execution on appeal bond, and or set appeal bond back to the original amount of $2,000, and or a temporary stay of execution until there is a full hearing, and or to waive appeal bond and normal costs, filed by William Statkiewicz.
12/20/2010 #15 RE#12: After review, all relief requested is denied. (Cypher, J.) *Notice/Attest.
12/20/2010 #16 Motion for emergency temporary stay of execution on appeal bond, filed by William Statkiewicz.
12/20/2010 #17 RE#13: Denied. (Cypher, J.) *Notice.
12/24/2010 #18 MOTION for stay under MRAP 6(A) with attach, filed by William Statkiewicz.
12/24/2010 #19 ORDER: The defendant, William Stakiewicz, has filed an emergency motion for a stay or temporary restraining order to prevent the constable from levying on the execution on Monday, December 27, 2010, because the Housing Court has issued an order of notice scheduling a hearing for 9:30 a.m. on December 27, 2010, to hear the defendant s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order. After review, the motion is allowed insofar as it is hereby ORDERED that a STAY of levy upon the execution is ALLOWED until 9:00 a.m. on December 28, 2010. I leave to the Housing Court judge s determination whether to enter any further stay or temporary restraining order following the hearing on December 27, 2010. (Sikora, J.) *Notice/Attest/Image.
12/31/2010 #20 Petition for relief filed by William Statkiewicz.
01/03/2011 #21 ORDER: I treat Mr. Stakiewicz's request for relief as a petition for modification of the conditional temporary restraining order entered by the Housing Court judge on December 27, 2010, submitted to this court under authority of G. L. c. 231, § 118, first paragraph. The standard of review under that provision is whether the trial judge's order constitutes an error of law or abuse of discretion. Aspinall v. Phillip Morris Co., Inc., 442 Mass. 381, 390 (2004). In the present circumstances, the temporary restraining order conditioned upon petitioner Stakiewicz's payment of the expenses imposed upon the landlord was a matter of sound discretion and grace for the judge. No ground is present for any alteration of the terms of the temporary restraining order. Petition denied. (Sikora, J.) *Notice/Attest/Muirhead, J./Image.
01/06/2011 Petition for relief/Rule 6 motion stay, filed by William Statkiewicz.