seal

Court Case Record PETER J. CHONGARLIDES & another vs. RONALD A. PINA 2011-J-0386 UID(c63c)


PETER J. CHONGARLIDES & another vs. RONALD A. PINA Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2011-J-0386


 
Case Number2011-J-0386
Case TitlePETER J. CHONGARLIDES & another vs. RONALD A. PINA
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyNew Bedford District, BR
CourtNew Bedford District, BR
Court Address
Phone
Field Date09/01/2011
Close Date09/01/2011

Parties

CounselNameType
Peter J. ChongarlidesPro Se Plaintiff/Petitioner
Doreen RoachPlaintiff
Robert J. Murphy, EsquireRonald A. PinaDefendant/Respondent
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
09/01/2011 #1 Motion for leave of Court to file late notice of appeal and petition to proceed in forma paurperis, filed by Peter J. Chongarlides.
09/01/2011 #2 Opposition to paper #1, filed by Ronald A. Pina.
09/01/2011 #3 ORDER: The within is treated as appellant's petition to late docket his appeal from a decision of the Appellate Division of the District Court affirming the District Court's allowance of the appellant plaintiff's summary judgment motion. Putting aside the question of the appellant's indigency status, the petition is entered this date without fee. The record in this matter was assembled on May 5, 2009, and the time in which to docket the appeal, pursuant to Mass.R.A.P. 10(a), has long expired. A petition seeking to late docket an appeal must set forth (1) reasons of excusable neglect as to why the appellant's entry of the appeal was delayed and (2) a meritorious appellate issue. Tisei v. Building Inspector of Marlborough, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 377, 378-379 (1975). After reviewing the appellant's petition and the opposition thereto, as well as the attachments, which include the opinion of the Appellate Division at issue(2), I conclude that the appellant has failed to establish in his petition the existence of a meritorious appellate issue(3). Consequently, the petition is denied. (Rubin, J.). Notice/attest/Sabra, J. footnotes (1) Doreen Roach. (2) The District Court dismissed the underlying lawsuit after allowing the defendant's motion to enforce a settlement agreement. The judgment was affirmed by the Appellate Division. To the extent the plaintiff asserted that he never received the cover letter and insurer's check for the settlement, the Appellate Division noted that he "now has an enforceable right to them outside of this action." (3) I therefore need not and do not make any determination whether appellant's delay was caused by excusable neglect.
09/06/2011 #4 Motion to strike opposition, filed by Peter J. Chongarlides.
09/13/2011 #5 Motion for leave for an extension of time to file a Motion for reconsideration, filed by Peter J. Chongarlides.
09/15/2011 #6 RE#4: Denied (Rubin, J.). *Notice
09/15/2011 #7 ORDER: The motion for reconsideration is allowed as follows. The first sentence of the order of September 1, 2011, is amended to say "The within is treated as appellant's petition to late docket his appeal from a decision of the Appellate Division of the District Court affirming the District Court's allowance of defendant's motion to enforce a settlement agreement." In all other respects, the order of September 1, 2011, is to stand (Rubin, J.). Notice/attest/Sabra, J.
09/21/2011 Notice of change of address of Attorney Robert J. Murphy.