Reznik v. Garaffo

• Decision Date: 20 December 2013
• Docket Number: SJC–11509.
• Citation: 999 N.E.2d 1089,466 Mass. 1034
• Parties: Mark REZNIK v. Richard T. GARAFFO & others.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

466 Mass. 1034
999 N.E.2d 1089

Mark REZNIK
v.
Richard T. GARAFFO & others.¹

SJC–11509.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

Dec. 20, 2013.

999 N.E.2d 1090

Mark Reznik, pro se.

David R. Marks, Assistant Attorney General, for Superior Court Department of the Trial Court & another.

Opinion

RESCRIPT.

466 Mass. 1034

Mark Reznik filed a petition pursuant to G.L. c. 211, § 3, in the county court seeking, among other things, an order compelling the Superior Court to accept his notice of appeal from an order denying his motion to intervene in the underlying Superior Court action.² Reznik had sought to intervene in the underlying case pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) and (b) (2), 365 Mass. 769 (1974). When he attempted to file a notice of appeal from that ruling, however, a second Superior Court judge ordered that the notice of appeal be returned on the ground that Reznik was not a party to the case. Reznik then attempted to file a notice of appeal from that

999 N.E.2d 1091

order, which likewise was returned.³

466 Mass. 1035

Reznik's claim that he improperly was denied an opportunity to appeal has merit. An “interlocutory order denying intervention as of right under Mass. R. Civ. P. 24(a), 365 Mass. 769 (1974), is immediately appealable, see, e.g., Massachusetts Fed'n of Teachers v. School Comm. of Chelsea, 409 Mass. 203, 204, 564 N.E.2d 1027 (1991), and when there is an appeal from a denial of a claim of intervention as of right, the court also generally considers the denial of a request for permissive intervention under Mass. R. Civ. P. 24(b), 365 Mass. 769 (1974).” Care & Protection of Richard, 456 Mass. 1002, 1002, 921 N.E.2d 535 (2010). The parties agree that Reznik's motion was predicated on both rule 24(a)(2) and (b)(2). His right to appeal was effectively cut off, however, because his multiple notices of appeal were refused for filing and returned to him. We are satisfied that further attempts in the trial court to remedy the situation would have been futile, and therefore relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3, was warranted. See Reznik v. District Court Dep't of the Trial Court, 456 Mass. 1001,...