seal

Court Case Record FRED CHANOWSKI vs. GARY PIONTKOWSKI 2014-J-0343 UID(d4bf)


FRED CHANOWSKI vs. GARY PIONTKOWSKI Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2014-J-0343


 
Case Number2014-J-0343
Case TitleFRED CHANOWSKI vs. GARY PIONTKOWSKI
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyMiddlesex
CourtMiddlesex Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date08/28/2014
Close Date09/17/2014

Parties

CounselNameType
David H. Rich, Esquire Hillary A. Lehmann, EsquireFred ChanowskiPlaintiff/Respondent
Pamela E. Berman, Esquire Jennifer Lauren Garner, EsquireGary PiontkowskiDefendant/Petitioner
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
08/28/2014 #1 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, ยง 118 with attachments, filed by Gary Piontkowski^
09/04/2014 #2 Opposition to Petition with attachments, filed by Fred Chanowski. ^
09/10/2014 #3 Motion for leave to file reply in response to opposition, filed by Gary Piontkowski^
09/11/2014 #4 Opposition to paper #3, filed by Fred Chanowski. ^
09/17/2014 #5 ORDER: The defendant filed a petition pursuant to G.L. c. 231, s. 118 seeking review of the Superior Court's denial of his motion to disqualify Todd & Weld as counsel for the plaintiff based upon a conflict of interest. The plaintiff filed a response to the petition. The defendant then filed a motion for leave to file a reply to the opposition, which we deny. To obtain relief, the defendant must demonstrate that the trial judge committed an error or law of abused his discretion in denying the defendant's motion. See Jet Line Servs., Inc. v. Selectmen of Stoughton, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 645, 646 (1988). The defendant has failed to demonstrate either. The defendant's asserted grounds are insufficient to overrule the plaintiff's choice of counsel. Accordingly, the defendant's petition, including the request for leave to file an interlocutory appeal, is denied (Maldonado, J.). Notice/attest/Desmond, J.