seal

Court Case Record GARY ROTHKOPF vs. LCK REALTY ASSOCIATES, LLC & others 2012-J-0380 UID(55ac)


GARY ROTHKOPF vs. LCK REALTY ASSOCIATES, LLC & others Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2012-J-0380


 
Case Number2012-J-0380
Case TitleGARY ROTHKOPF vs. LCK REALTY ASSOCIATES, LLC & others
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyNorfolk
CourtNorfolk Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date10/11/2012
Close Date10/17/2012

Parties

CounselNameType
Edward Foye, EsquireGary RothkopfPlaintiff/Respondent
Keith P. Slattery, EsquireLCK Realty Associates, LLCDefendant
Dana E. Casher, EsquireDavid BovarnickDefendant/Petitioner
Keith P. Slattery, EsquireGaro Hyannis, LLCDefendant
Keith P. Slattery, EsquireRoute 495 Commerce Park, LPDefendant
Keith P. Slattery, EsquireRobin RothkopfDefendant
Keith P. Slattery, EsquireJon BovarnickDefendant
Keith P. Slattery, EsquireJay BovarnickDefendant
Keith P. Slattery, EsquireJeffrey BovarnickDefendant
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
10/11/2012 #1 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 with attachments, filed by David Bovarnick. ^
10/15/2012 #2 Motion to dismiss "Petition for Interlocutory Relief Pursuant to G.L.c. 231, §118 (First Paragraph) and request for injunction pending ruling heron" and MOTION for attorneys' fees, filed by Gary Rothkopf.^
10/17/2012 #3 RE# 1& 2 ORDER: On October 11, 2012, defendant David Bovarnick filed a petition, pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118 (first par.), seeking review of an order of the Norfolk Superior Court, dated August 14, 2012, in which the court denied the defendant's motion for a protective order as to his personal and financial information. He also seeks review of an order dated September 13, 2012, in which the court denied his motion for reconsideration of the August 14, 2012 order. The defendant failed to file a timely § 118 petition for review of the trial court's August 14, 2012 order. 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, the defendant has not established that his motion for reconsideration of the August 14, 2012 order raised any substantially new matter from that which was presented in the prior motion. Since the motion for reconsideration essentially seeks 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). Mr. Rothkopf's request for attorneys' fees is denied. (Sullivan, J.) *Notice/Attest/Brady, J.