Title: Suburban Electric Contracting, Inc. v. Ozdemir
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-13400
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: May 26, 2023

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13400 
 
SUBURBAN ELECTRIC CONTRACTING, INC.  vs.  SEFER OZDEMIR.1 
 
 
May 26, 2023. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Interest.  Practice, Civil, Interest. 
 
 
The petitioner, Suburban Electric Contracting, Inc. 
(Suburban), appeals from a judgment in the county court denying 
its petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm. 
 
Background.  After a jury trial, Suburban was awarded 
monetary damages on a breach of contract claim against the 
respondent, Sefer Ozdemir.  The parties cross-appealed from the 
judgment.  The Appellate Division of the Boston Municipal Court 
Department affirmed the verdict but remanded the case for 
consideration of attorney's fees and recalculation of interest, 
in accordance with the terms of the underlying contract.  Upon 
remand, Suburban filed a motion for attorney's fees in the 
amount of $31,750.99.  The motion was allowed, and an amended 
judgment entered in April 2021 incorporating these attorney's 
fees, along with the postjudgment interest rate specified in the 
contract.  An execution issued on the amended judgment later the 
same month totaling $65,708.26. 
 
Over one and one-half years later, Suburban moved for the 
appointment of a special process server to conduct a sale of 
Ozdemir's real property in order to satisfy the amended judgment 
and execution.  Thereafter, counsel for Ozdemir presented a 
check for the execution amount, plus the postjudgment interest 
that had since accrued.  Suburban refused to accept payment, 
asserting that the check failed to fully satisfy the execution 
 
1 Individually and as trustee of Golden Horn Realty Trust. 
2 
 
 
 
because it did not compensate Suburban for additional attorney's 
fees and costs incurred after entry of the amended judgment.2  
Suburban instead continued to litigate the motion to appoint a 
special process server for the purpose of selling Ozdemir's 
property.  At a hearing on the motion, a judge in the trial 
court declined to take action, concluding that the motion was 
premature in light of Ozdemir's willingness to tender payment on 
the execution amount of $65,708.26 plus postjudgment interest, 
and ordered that further accrual of such interest be tolled.  
The judge instructed Suburban that it would need to file a 
motion if it sought to recover additional attorney's fees beyond 
the $31,750.99 already incorporated into the amended judgment. 
 
Thereafter, Suburban filed a motion to vacate the judge's 
ruling tolling the accrual of postjudgment interest.  Suburban 
requested, in the alternative, that the tolling order be stayed 
pending appeal.3  The matter came before a second judge in the 
trial court, who declined to rule on the motion, observing that 
Suburban was effectively seeking reconsideration of another 
motion judge's ruling.4  Suburban then filed the instant petition 
requesting relief from the tolling order.  A single justice 
denied the petition without a hearing, and this appeal followed. 
 
Discussion. Suburban has filed a memorandum and appendix 
pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), 
which requires a party challenging an interlocutory ruling of 
the trial court to "set forth the reasons why review of the 
trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal 
from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other 
available means."  Bypassing the question whether that rule 
applies in these circumstances, it is nonetheless clear from the 
record that the single justice did not err or abuse his 
 
2 At the hearing on Suburban's motion to appoint the special 
process server, counsel for Suburban produced a bill itemizing 
some portion of the additional fees for which it sought 
compensation.  However, Suburban did not file a motion for 
additional attorney's fees, and the record before the single 
justice does not contain an affidavit or itemization of these 
fees and costs. 
 
3 Suburban also filed a separate motion to strike the tender 
of payment offered by Ozdemir.  That motion was denied. 
 
4 In response to the second motion judge's ruling, Suburban 
withdrew its motion for the appointment of a special process 
server. 
3 
 
 
 
discretion in denying relief.  See Cook v. Carlson, 440 Mass. 
1025, 1025-1026 (2003).  Here, Suburban has failed to 
demonstrate that the ruling it seeks to challenge "could not 
adequately be addressed through the ordinary appellate process, 
in an appeal . . . from the postjudgment order."  Lasher v. 
Leslie-Lasher, 474 Mass. 1003, 1004 (2016).  See, e.g., City 
Coal Co. of Springfield v. Noonan, 424 Mass. 693, 695 (1997) 
(entertaining subsequent appeal concerning postjudgment interest 
but declining to consider arguments as to prejudgment interest 
which were apparent on face of original judgment and could have 
been raised in original appeal).  Indeed, in its motion to 
vacate the tolling order, Suburban explicitly contemplated 
pursuing an appeal.  Suburban chose not to do so and, "[h]aving 
failed to avail [itself] of the traditional appellate route to 
obtain an effective remedy, . . . is not entitled to invoke the 
extraordinary relief set forth in G. L. c. 211, § 3."  
Harrington v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 484 Mass. 1041, 
1042 (2020), quoting Lantsman v. Lantsman, 429 Mass. 1018, 1019 
(1999). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Alvin S. Nathanson for the petitioner.