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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13362

FERAHNAZ KAHYAOGLU vs. SILLARI ENTERPRISES LLC.

October 24, 2023.

Practice, Civil, Summary process, Stay of proceedings, Moot 

case. Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior 

courts.

The petitioner, Ferahnaz Kahyaoglu, appeals from a judgment 

of a single justice of this court denying her petition for 

extraordinary relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. We dismiss 

the appeal as moot.

Judgment entered against Kahyaoglu in a summary process 

action in the Housing Court. In her petition to the single 

justice of this court, Kahyaoglu specifically challenged the 

denial of her motions to stay execution of that judgment on the 

basis of purported illness. Kahyaoglu moved the Housing Court

for this relief, and her motion was denied on November 29, 2022. 

Kahyaoglu then sought a stay on the same ground from a single 

justice of the Appeals Court pursuant to Mass. R. A. P. 6 (a), 

as appearing in 481 Mass. 1608 (2019), and on November 30, 2022, 

her motion was denied. After that denial, Kahyaoglu petitioned 

the single justice of this court. The only relief she sought 

from the single justice was a stay of execution from December 1, 

2022, to December 5, 2022, on the basis of illness.

Importantly, both parties represent in their briefs that 

the eviction that Kahyaoglu sought to stay has already occurred. 

Consequently, the matter is now moot. See Lumber Yard 

Northampton Ltd. Partnership v. Hudson, 490 Mass. 1030, 1030 

(2022) ("Because it appears that the tenant no longer occupies 

the subject premises, we agree that her request for a stay of 

the eviction is moot"); Elgbe v. Pine St. Inn, Inc., 441 Mass. 
2

1009, 1009 (2004) (holding that where tenant had been evicted, 

"the relief he desired -- a stay of that eviction -- ha[d] 

become moot"); Matter of an Appeal Bond (No. 2), 428 Mass. 1022, 

1022 (1999). Therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed, 

as the court "can order no further effective relief" as to 

Kahyaoglu's requested stay (quotation and citation omitted). 

Lynn v. Murrell, 489 Mass. 579, 582 (2022).

Even if the appeal were not moot, however, we would affirm 

the single justice's denial of Kahyaoglu's petition brought 

under G. L. c. 211, § 3. "Relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is 

properly denied where there are adequate and effective routes 

other than c. 211, § 3, by which the petitioning party may seek 

relief." Greco v. Plymouth Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019 

(1996). Kahyaoglu's petition did not establish the absence or 

inadequacy of an alternative remedy. See Lasher v. LeslieLasher, 474 Mass. 1003, 1004 (2016). On the contrary, after her 

motions to stay were denied by the Housing Court and by a single 

justice of the Appeals Court, Kahyaoglu could have appealed from 

the latter denial to a panel of the Appeals Court pursuant to 

Mass. R. A. P. 15 (c), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1627 (2019), 

and Rule 15.0 (b) of the Rules of the Appeals Court, as 

appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1010 (2020). See Linardon v. 

Boston Hous. Auth., 487 Mass. 1006, 1007 (2021); Kordis v. 

Appeals Court, 434 Mass. 662, 664-665 (2001). Because this 

relief was available, the single justice of this court did not 

commit a clear error of law or abuse her discretion in denying 

relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. See Linardon, supra; 

Commonwealth v. Fontanez, 482 Mass. 22, 24 (2019).

Appeal dismissed.

The case was submitted on briefs.

Ferahnaz Kahyaoglu, pro se.

Keith B. Kenyon for the respondent.