seal

Court Case Record SYBIL VIERA, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CRAIG T. VIERRA vs. LYONS GROUP, LTD. 2011-J-0144 UID(1abe)


SYBIL VIERA, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CRAIG T. VIERRA vs. LYONS GROUP, LTD. Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2011-J-0144


 
Case Number2011-J-0144
Case TitleSYBIL VIERA, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CRAIG T. VIERRA vs. LYONS GROUP, LTD.
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountySuffolk
CourtSuffolk Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date04/11/2011
Close Date04/19/2011

Parties

CounselNameType
Michael J. Heineman, EsquireSybil Viera, Administratrix of the EstPlaintiff/Respondent
H. Charles Hambelton, Esquire Daniel J. Shanahan, EsquireLyons Group, LTD.Defendant/Petitioner
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
04/11/2011 #1 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 with attachments, filed by Lyons Group, LTD.
04/19/2011 #2 ORDER "The defendant has filed a petition pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118 (first para.), seeking review of two orders of the Superior Court which denied, on January 6, 2011, its Motion for Summary Judgment, and Motion for Reconsideration, on March 9, 2011. To the extent the petition seeks review of the order entered on January 6, 2011, it must be denied, as the single justice is without authority to grant the requested relief because the petition was not filed within the thirty-day period as required under G. L. c. 231, § 118 (first para.). Had the petition been timely filed the single justice would nonetheless be without authority the grant the requested relief, as it seeks relief that is outcome determinative in nature. See Mass.R.A.P. 15(c). Concerning the Order of March 9, 2011, denying the Motion for Reconsideration of the denial of the Motion for Summary Judgment, and putting aside the argument that as a motion for reconsideration it fails to established any new issue not raised in the prior motion, the petition is denied for the reason that it too seeks relief that is ultimately outcome determinative in nature. See McGrath v. McGrath, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 670, 671-673 (2006); Manousos v. Sarkis, 382 Mass. 317, 322-323 (1981). Finally, the defendant submits that the issues raised in the petition are properly before the single justice "pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, and the Doctrine of Present Execution." To the extent the petition seeks review of an order falling under the Doctrine of Present Execution, it is not properly before the single justice. Appellate review of an order falling under the Doctrine of Present Execution is initiated by the filing of a notice of appeal, pursuant to Mass.R.A.P. 4(a), the appeal to proceed before a panel of this court. Accordingly, all requested relief, including the granting of an interlocutory appeal, is denied. (Fecteau, J.). *Notice/Attest/Image