Aspen Square Management v. Walker, 94-P-1146
| Decision Date | 22 December 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-P-1146,94-P-1146 |
| Citation | 644 N.E.2d 237,37 Mass.App.Ct. 970 |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
| Parties | ASPEN SQUARE MANAGEMENT v. Brian WALKER & another. |
Thomas Coish, for defendants.
Christopher Nolan, for plaintiff.
RESCRIPT.
The defendants appealed from the judgment for possession for the landlord, but they failed to docket their appeal within the time fixed by Mass.R.A.P. 10(a)(1), as amended, 378 Mass. 937 (1979). The landlord filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in the trial court. Before it was heard, the defendants filed a motion in this court for late docketing, arguing only that Mass.R.A.P. 10(c), as amended, 378 Mass. 938 (1979), entitled them to late docketing because their motion, tendered before dismissal of the appeal in the trial court, cured their noncompliance with rule 10(a). The single justice denied the motion for late docketing. Thereafter, the trial judge, after hearing, ordered the appeal dismissed.
Both orders were correct. The single justice acted well within her discretion because the defendants had not made the showing for late docketing required by Tisei v. Building Inspector of Marlborough, 3 Mass.App.Ct. 377, 379, 330 N.E.2d 488 (1975), and Maciuca v. Papit, 31 Mass.App.Ct. 540, 546, 581 N.E.2d 488 (1991). The filing of a motion for late docketing does not cure the noncompliance within the meaning of rule 10(c) unless that motion is allowed prior to action by the trial court on the motion to dismiss the appeal.
Order denying motion for late docketing affirmed.
Order dismissing appeal affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Finkelstein v. Keyes
...court not to accept a docketing fee while a motion to dismiss a notice of appeal is pending at the trial court. See Aspen Sq. Mgmt. v. Walker, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 970 (1994). This basis was plainly an abuse of discretion because Finkelstein's inability to pay the docketing fee is attributable......
- Com. v. Yetz, 94-P-94
-
Azubuko v. Sheriff of Middlesex County.
...Mass. App. Ct. 485, 492-493 & n.9 (1992). Allowance of a motion to docket an appeal late is a matter of discretion.Aspen Square Mgmt. v. Walker, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 970 (1994). See Larabee v. Potvin Lumber Co., 390 Mass. 636, 638-639 (1983) (motion made two weeks after Appeals Court decision)......
-
Maza v. Com.
...Court single justice's denial of her motion for permission to have her appeal docketed late. See, e.g., Aspen Square Management v. Walker, 37 Mass.App.Ct. 970, 644 N.E.2d 237 (1994); Robinson v. Commissioner of Dep't of Youth Servs., 7 Mass.App.Ct. 847, 384 N.E.2d 1253 (1979); Tisei v. Buil......