Larkin v. Ayer Div. of Dist. Court Dept.
| Decision Date | 09 July 1997 |
| Citation | 681 N.E.2d 817,425 Mass. 1020 |
| Parties | & others. 1 Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Michael L. Larkin, pro se, submitted a brief.
RESCRIPT.
A single justice of this court denied the petitioner's pro se petition for relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3, and his motion for a stay of related criminal proceedings in the District Court. The petitioner appealed and, because the underlying matter is a protective order issued pursuant to G.L. c. 209A (209A order), we have allowed him to proceed in the regular appellate process. See Parekh v. Parekh, 421 Mass. 1009, 659 N.E.2d 740 (1996).
The petitioner's main challenge is to a 209A order that was entered on December 15, 1995, extending an ex parte order that had been entered ten days earlier. We have no evidence concerning the current status of the 209A order, which was due to expire in December, 1996, several months before this case was submitted to the court, but there is a suggestion in the record that the petitioner has been charged criminally with multiple violations of the initial, ex parte order. In these circumstances, we do not regard the matter as moot, see Frizado v. Frizado, 420 Mass. 592, 593-594 & n. 2, 651 N.E.2d 1206 (1995); Cobb v. Cobb, 406 Mass. 21, 23, 545 N.E.2d 1161 (1989), and we shall consider the merits of the petitioner's arguments.
We have listened to the tape recording of the District Court hearing and reviewed the petitioner's submissions. The testimony before the District Court was not sufficient to warrant the extension of the 209A order. The complainant initially sought the 209A order because she alleged that the petitioner "placed [her] in fear of imminent serious physical harm" by sending her notices of a future lawsuit and court proceedings. She testified that she suffered "emotionally" and experienced an aggravation of her ulcers as a result of receiving the petitioner's notices. Such conduct by the petitioner, even if true, does not evidence a threat or rise to the level of "imminent serious physical harm" that this court has recognized as "abuse" under G.L. c. 209A, § 1. 2 Contrast Flynn v. Warner, 421 Mass. 1002, 1003, 654 N.E.2d 926 (1995) (). Therefore, assuming without deciding that, in some circumstances, physical manifestations of emotional harm resulting in the aggravation of preexisting medical conditions can constitute "physical harm," and therefore "abuse," within the meaning of G.L. c. 209A, § 1, we are convinced that this is not such a case. Cf. Commonwealth v. Jacobsen, 419...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vittone v. Clairmont
...v. Clerk of the Westfield Div. of the Dist. Ct. Dept., 425 Mass. 1016, 1017, 681 N.E.2d 276 (1997); Larkin v. Ayer Div. of the Dist. Ct. Dept., 425 Mass. 1020, 1020, 681 N.E.2d 817 (1997); Wooldridge v. Hickey, 45 Mass.App.Ct. 637, 639, 700 N.E.2d 296 (1998); Uttaro v. Uttaro, 54 Mass.App.C......
-
Ginsberg v. Blacker
...the plaintiff's evidence has failed to establish abuse as defined in G.L. c. 209A, § 1. See, e.g., Larkin v. Ayer Div. of the Dist. Ct. Dept., 425 Mass. 1020, 1020-1021, 681 N.E.2d 817 (1997) (sending notices of a future lawsuit and court proceedings insufficient); Wooldridge v. Hickey, 45 ......
-
Smith v. Jones
...of preexisting medical conditions" might in some circumstances constitute "physical harm," see Larkin v. Ayer Div. of the Dist. Ct. Dept., 425 Mass. 1020, 1020, 681 N.E.2d 817 (1997), the physical manifestation of emotional distress to which the plaintiff testified here is not the physical ......
-
Szymkowski v. Szymkowski
...in determining whether the evidence, as matter of law, warranted issuance of the c. 209A order. See Larkin v. Ayer Div. of the Dist. Court Dept., 425 Mass. 1020, 1020, 681 N.E.2d 817 (1997).4 Patrick Szymkowski, the defendant, and his wife, Christine, were divorced January 9, 1998. Christin......