Title: Kifor v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-13263
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: June 22, 2022

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13263 
 
IMRE KIFOR  vs.  COMMONWEALTH & others.1 
 
 
June 22, 2022. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Practice, Civil, Action in nature of certiorari. 
 
 
Imre Kifor appeals from a judgment of a single justice of 
this court denying his complaint for relief in the nature of 
certiorari pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 4.  We affirm. 
 
Through this action in the nature of certiorari, Kifor 
sought to correct alleged errors in judicial proceedings in the 
Middlesex Division of the Probate and Family Court Department 
and in the Appeals Court.  The single justice denied relief "on 
the grounds that [Kifor] has an adequate, alternate remedy in 
the normal appellate process."  Kifor timely appealed. 
 
After his appeal was entered in this court, Kifor filed an 
"SJC Rule 2:21 Memorandum" in an attempt to comply with S.J.C. 
Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001).  That rule applies 
when a single justice of this court "denies relief from an 
interlocutory ruling in the trial court."  Id.  Regardless of 
whether the rule applies to all of Kifor's claims, it is 
apparent from Kifor's submissions and from the record below that 
the single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion in 
denying relief. 
 
"The purpose of a civil action in the nature of certiorari 
is to correct errors that 'are not otherwise reviewable by 
motion or by appeal.'"  Johnson v. Commonwealth, 463 Mass. 1006, 
 
 
1 Middlesex Division of the Probate and Family Court 
Department, Barbara A. Duchesne, and Cynthia S. Oulton. 
2 
 
 
 
1007 (2012), quoting G. L. c. 249, § 4.  Kifor "bears the burden 
to allege and demonstrate the absence or inadequacy of other 
remedies."  Kim v. Rosenthal, 473 Mass. 1029, 1030 (2016).  He 
has not carried that burden here. 
 
Kifor concedes that other appellate remedies are available 
to him, by acknowledging that, despite some delay, his appeals 
from various decisions and orders of the Probate and Family 
Court are now docketed and pending in the Appeals Court.  
Kifor's blanket assertions that such review will be inadequate 
are insufficient to demonstrate that he is entitled to review 
pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 4. 
 
Kifor has also availed himself of the procedures set forth 
in G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., to obtain review of certain 
interlocutory orders by a single justice of the Appeals Court.  
Where an Appeals Court single justice has denied relief under 
that statute, Kifor "is not entitled as of right to any further 
interlocutory review."  Padmanabhan v. Cooke, 483 Mass. 1024, 
1025 (2019). 
 
The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in 
denying relief under G. L. c. 249, § 4. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Imre Kifor, pro se.