NOTICE: 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, theref ore, 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). COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
22

- P

- 248
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION , trustee, 1

vs . THERESA A. CHERRY. 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
This appeal stems from a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff, U.S. Bank National Association, in a summary process action in the Housing Court. A s ingle j ustice of this c ourt denied defendant Theresa Cherry's subsequent motion to stay the eviction pending app eal. T his appeal followed. We affirm. 3 Background

. As far as we can discern from the record, 4 t he underlying summary process action commenced in December 2018. On May 3, 2019 , a judge of the Housing Court entered a summary

1 O n behalf of the holders of the A sset

- B acked S ecurities C orporation H ome E quity L oan T rust, S eries AMQ 2006

- HE7 A sset B acked P ass - T hrough Certificates , S eries AMQ 2006

- HE7. 2 Christopher Cherry and Robert Dansereau were also named as defendants in the underlying action but did not participate in this appeal

. 3 We acknowledge the amicus brief submitted by the Disability Law Center. 4 Our review is hampered by the confusing and unclear record provided by the defenda nt on appeal.2 process judgment for pos session in favor of the plaintiff. Cherry and one of her codefendant s in the underlying action, Robert Dansereau, timely appealed and sought a waiver of the appeal bond. On May 31, 2019 , a judge of the Housing Court issued an appeal bond order. A single justice of this court affirmed the order, and Cherry and Dansereau appealed. Cherry
and Dansereau then failed to comply with the appeal bond order,
and , on July 9, 2019 , their appeal was dismissed . That same day, an execution for possession was issued in favor of the plaintiff. Cherry and Dansereau sought and were granted a stay by a judge of the Housing Court allowing them until August 31,
2019 , to vacate the property. Cherry and Dansereau failed to

vacate the property
. On September 10, 2019, Dansereau filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition that triggered an automatic stay. The plaintiff was relieved from the automatic stay and , on January 29, 2020, issued a new execution for possession. The plaintiff moved for issuance of an alias execution o n December 21, 2021 , and a hearing was scheduled for January 10,
2022. O n January 10, 2022 , Cherry filed a motion to postpone the hearing due to contracting COVID

- 19

. A judge of the Housing3 Court denied th at motion, he ld the hearing on January 10, 2022 , and allowed the plaintiff's motion to issue an alias execution. 5 On February 10, 2022 , Cherry filed a motion for stay pending appeal pursuant to Mass. R. A. P. 6 (a) , as appearing in 481 Mass. 1608 (2019), with a s in gle j ustice of this court. 6 On February 24, 20 22 , t he s ingle j ustice denied Cherry's motion in
a written order , determining, inter alia, that "the Housing Court judge did not abuse her discretion or make an error of law in holding the hearing on [January 10, 2022] or in allowing the plaintiff's motion to issue the execution." 7 The s ingle j ustice highlighted Cherry's failure to demonstrat e a likelihood of
success on the merits of her claim that the Housing Court judge abused her discretion in denying Cherry's motion to stay the
eviction. 8 The single justice subsequently denied Cherry 's

5 It appears that the plaintiff 's representatives appeared in person at the January 10, 2022, hearing while defendant Theresa Cherry appeared at the hearing via Zoom. 6 The Appeals Court s ingle j ustice docket contains an entry dated February 10, 2022, indicating "Motion for stay under M. R. A. P. 6 (a) filed by Theresa Cherry." Again, as far as we can discern, this is the motion for stay that was before the s ingle j ustice and that is now the subject of the present appeal. However, the defend ant failed to include a copy of that motion in the record appendix or elsewhere in the appellate record. 7 The s ingle j ustice also issued an order on February 1 1 , 2022 , allowing the defendant ' s motion to file a one

- day late notice of appeal under Mass. R. A. P. 14 (b) , as appearing in 481 Mass. 1626 (2019), from the Housing Court's January 10, 2022 , orders. 8 The s ingle j ustice, in her discretion, did "grant a stay on the levy on the execution to [March 7, 2022] , after which time the plaint iff may levy on the execution obtained from the Housing4 motion for reconsideration. Cherry filed a notice of appeal of
the s ingle j ustice's order o n March 11, 2022

. Discussion . The record before us does not include the motion to stay brought before the s ingle j ustice. See note 6 , supra . Nonetheless, w e review the February 24, 2022 , s ingle justice order "for errors of law and, if none appear, for abuse
of discretion." Troy Indus., Inc

. v. Samson Mfg. Corp

. , 76

Mass. App. Ct. 575, 581 (2010). A judge ' s discretionary
decision constitutes an abuse of discretion where we conclude the judge mad e " a clear error of judgment in weighing the
factors relevant to the decision

. . . such that the decision falls outside the range of reasonable alternatives " (quotation and citations omitted). L.L
. v. Com monwealth , 470 Mass. 169, 185 n.27 (2014 ).
The d efendant contend s that the single justice erred in denying her February 10, 2022 , motion to stay pending appeal. In order to succeed on a motion to stay pending appeal, an appellant must successfully demonstrate " (1) the likelihood of appellant's success on the merits; (2) the likelihood of irreparable harm to appellant if the court denies the stay; (3) the absence of substantial harm to other parties if the stay issues; and (4) the absence of harm to the public interest from

Court." The s ingle j ustice further ruled that "No further stays from this court should be anticipated."5 granting the stay. " C.E
. v. J .E
. , 472 Mass. 1016, 1017 (2015) , quoting J.W. Smith & H.B. Zobel, Rules Practice § 62.3, at 409 (2d ed. 2007).

W e discern no abuse of discretion. In weighing the relevant factors, the s ingle j ustice denied the motion because
the defendant did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of the appeal. On the record before us we do not disagree. The defen dant reference s no facts demonstrating that
the s ingle j ustice 's ruling was outside the range of reasonable
alternatives or an abuse of discretion . See Gifford v. Gifford , 451 Mass. 1012, 1013 (2008), quoting Mezoff v. Cudnohufsky , 5 Mass. App. Ct. 874, 8 74 (1977) ("'Rarely, if ever, can it be said that a single justice is in error in denying relief' under

Mass. R. A. P. 6"). T o the extent that the defendant assert s that the denial of her motion to stay violated her equal protection rights and denied her a reasonable accommodation, we disagree. The Housing Court judge did provide a reasonable accommodation to the defendant in allowing defendant Cherry to appear for the January 10, 2022, hearing via Zoom, which she
did. The defendant ' s conclusory and ofte n contradictory arguments do not demonstrate otherwise. Finally, to the extent that the defendant argue s that the Housing Court judge was required to continue the January 10, 2022, hearing because the defendant had COVID ( and that because6 she wa s disabled because of COVID , she was entitled to a lengthy stay ), the argument is likewise unavailing. T he defendant failed to provide a copy of the January 10, 2022, hearing transcript. On the record before us we are unable to discern any violation within the meaning of Adjartey v. Central Div

. of
the Hous

. Court Dep't , 481 Mass. 830, 849 (2019) , or G. L.

c. 93, § 103 ( a ) , much less that the s ingle j ustice abused her
discretion

. 9 Order of the single justice affirmed

. By th e Court (Rubin, Neyman & Walsh, JJ. 10 ),

Clerk
Entered: October 23, 2023.

9 To the extent we do not discuss other arguments made by the parties, they have not been overl ooked. "We find nothing in them that requires discussion." Commonwealth v. Domanski , 332 Mass. 66, 78 (1954). 10 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.