N.S. v. S.S.

• Docket Number: 23-P-1008
• Decision Date: 24 April 2024
• Parties: N.S. v. S.S.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

1

N.S.
v.
S.S.

No. 23-P-1008

Appeals Court of Massachusetts

April 24, 2024

Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass.App.Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass.App.Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The defendant, S.S., appeals from the extension on July 13, 2023, of a G. L. c. 258E harassment prevention order previously entered against him on July 13, 2022. The extension order commanded the defendant not to abuse, harass, or contact, and to stay away from the plaintiff, N.S., for an additional six months, until January 13, 2024. We affirm.

The plaintiff obtained a temporary order on an ex parte basis and, following a two-party hearing held on July 13, 2022, it was extended for one year. The defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, and the clerk of the District Court assembled the record and transmitted it to this Court on September 6, 2022. The defendant was required to take action to docket the appeal within fourteen days, see Mass. R. A. P. 10 (a), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1618 (2019), but he failed to do so and

2

the appeal was never docketed. The defendant did not file a motion to docket the appeal late, which would have required a showing of excusable neglect and a meritorious case on appeal. See Howard v. Boston Water & Sewer Comm'n, 96 Mass.App.Ct. 119, 122 (2019). Because the defendant failed to appeal from the original order, it is not before us, and we decline to address his claims that (1) the judge violated the defendant's due process rights at the July 13, 2022, hearing or (2) that the plaintiff failed to prove malicious intent.

After the order was extended for six months on July 13, 2023, by a different judge, the defendant timely filed a second notice of appeal, the record was assembled, and the defendant took the necessary steps to docket the appeal. We therefore address the defendant's claim that the evidence at the 2023 hearing was insufficient to warrant an extension. We review the judge's...