Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/425/425mass1021.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 00:19:54+00:00

Document:
HERTZL SINAI vs. PLYMOUTH DIVISION OF THE PROBATE AND FAMILY COURT DEPARTMENT.
The petitioner, Hertzl Sinai, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying the relief which he sought in documents entitled "two appeals" and "petition for transfer." The single justice treated the documents as petitions under G. L. c. 211, s. 3, and denied them without a hearing. We affirm.
With respect to his "two appeals," the petitioner failed to allege, let alone demonstrate, that the errors he claimed in the proceedings below could not adequately have been remedied through the normal appellate process or by other available means. It was his obligation to demonstrate the absence or inadequacy of other remedies. Hines v. Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 1004 (1996). McGuinness v. Commonwealth, 420 Mass. 495 , 497 (1995). The petitioner also failed to develop a factual record before the single justice substantiating his claims of error. It was his obligation to develop such a record. Barnoski v. Commonwealth, 413 Mass. 1007 (1992). Allen v. Christian, 408 Mass. 1007 , 1008 (1990).
Regarding the "petition for transfer," the single justice did not abuse his discretion in denying, on the very sparse record before him, the petitioner's request for transfer to this court of the multiple actions identified by the petitioner. See G. L. c. 211, s. 4A, third par.
In these circumstances, we shall not consider any facts or issues raised by the petitioner on appeal that were not raised in his submissions to the single justice.
LLOYD MATTHEWS vs. KENNETH D'ARCY.
Lloyd Matthews, pro se, submitted a brief.
We have repeatedly held that relief under G. L. c. 211, s. 3, is properly denied where there are routes other than c. 211, s. 3, by which the petitioning party may adequately seek relief. Greco v. Plymouth Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019 (1996). Martineau v. Department of Correction, 423 Mass. 1007 (1996). Maza v. Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 1006 (1996). We have also held that it is the petitioning party's burden to demonstrate the absence or inadequacy of other remedies. Hines v. Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 1004 (1996). McGuinness v. Commonwealth, 420 Mass. 495 , 497 (1995). Dunbrack v. Commonwealth, 398 Mass. 502 , 504 (1986).
substantiated allegations. The amended petition is to be served on D'Arcy, who will have ten days in which to respond. If, by that time, the Superior Court has not acted on the pending motions, the single justice may take a fresh look at the situation and decide anew whether any relief pursuant to G. L c. 211, s. 3, may be warranted.
[Note 1] Because Matthews's appeal does not concern a "challenged interlocutory ruling in the trial court," it is not subject to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, 421 Mass. 1303 (1995), and so we previously ordered that it should proceed according to the regular appellate process.
[Note 2] We note a further deficiency in Matthews's petition. He did not demonstrate, or even allege, that the motions he filed in the Superior Court were correctly served on D'Arcy. Copies of his motions were not made part of the record before the single justice. Nor was a copy of D'Arcy's opposition included. Without proof of proper service and a showing that the motions were otherwise ripe for disposition, the single justice was in no position to order the Superior Court to dispose of these motions.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.