Title: Bishay v. Superior Court Department

State: massachusetts

Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Document:

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-12478 
 
BAHIG BISHAY & others1  vs.  SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT. 
 
 
October 31, 2018. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
The petitioners, Bahig Bishay (Bishay) and National 
Investigations, Inc., Glenn Gillis, and Garry Gillis 
(collectively, National), appeal from a judgment of a single 
justice of this court denying, without a hearing, their petition 
for extraordinary relief in the nature of mandamus, pursuant to 
G. L. c. 211, § 3.2  We affirm. 
 
 
This is one of a number of cases relating to Bishay's 
eviction from his home.  Specifically, in the case underlying 
this, which Bishay commenced in the Superior Court, Bishay 
sought damages for the removal and storage of his personal 
property in the course of the eviction.  See Bishay v. Clerk of 
the Superior Court in Norfolk County, 476 Mass. 1017, 1018 
(2017) (denying petition for writ of mandamus seeking order 
compelling clerk to enter final judgment as proposed by 
petitioners).  The National petitioners were among the 
defendants in the Superior Court action.  Final judgment has now 
entered in that case, Bishay has appealed, and his appeal has 
been entered and is currently pending in the Appeals Court. 
 
 
While that appeal has been pending, Bishay and National 
filed a joint petition in the county court pursuant to G. L. 
                                                          
 
 
1 National Investigations, Inc.; Glenn Gillis; and Garry 
Gillis. 
 
 
2 The single justice also denied the petitioners' motion for 
reconsideration. 
2 
 
 
c. 211, § 3, seeking an order requiring the Superior Court judge 
to incorporate their "agreement for judgment" into the final 
judgment in the Superior Court; in the alternative, they sought 
an order from the single justice requiring a jury trial in the 
underlying case.  The single justice denied their petition. 
 
 
The appeal from the single justice's judgment is now before 
us on the petitioners' memorandum and appendix pursuant to 
S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001).  The rule 
applies where a single justice has denied relief from an 
interlocutory ruling in the trial court, and requires the 
appellant to "set forth the reasons why review of the trial 
court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any 
adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available 
means."  Id.  Regardless of whether the rule applies in this 
situation, "it is clear on this record that Bishay [and National 
have or] had adequate remedies in the ordinary appellate 
process."  Bishay v. Land Court Dep't of the Trial Court, 477 
Mass. 1032, 1033 (2017).  See Wallace v. PNC Bank, N.A., 478 
Mass. 1020, 1020 (2018) ("whether relief is requested in the 
nature of certiorari or mandamus, or by means of the court's 
extraordinary power of general superintendence, relief is 
available only where the petitioner demonstrates the absence of 
an adequate and effective alternative remedy").  Specifically, 
to the extent the petitioners challenge the form of the Superior 
Court's judgment, or otherwise claim error in the underlying 
proceedings, they can make those claims in the Appeals Court, in 
the pending appeal from the final judgment in the underlying 
action.  They have not met their burden of establishing that the 
normal appellate process is inadequate to provide a remedy. 
 
 
In these circumstances, the single justice neither erred 
nor abused his discretion in denying the petition. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed.  
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Bahig Bishay, pro se. 
 
Robert E. Kelley for National Investigations, Inc., & 
others.