Court Opinion

ID: 9952622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-20 14:09:35.946172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:42:00.938754
License: Public Domain

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, therefore, 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

                                                  23-P-404

                                       S.G.

                                       vs.

                                       R.S.

               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

       After an evidentiary hearing, a District Court judge on

 November 1, 2021, issued a one-year abuse prevention order

 against R.S. pursuant to G. L. c. 209A.            R.S. did not appeal

 from the 209A order but filed a motion for reconsideration that

 the same judge denied.       On R.S.'s appeal, we affirm.

       Background.     S.G. and R.S. lived together as roommates in

 an apartment in Somerville.         In the fall of 2021, they each

 filed an application for a restraining order against the other.

 S.G. sought an order pursuant to G. L. c. 209A, while R.S.

 sought a harassment prevention order pursuant to G. L. c. 258A.

 An evidentiary hearing was held on November 1, 2021, with

 respect to the parties' dueling requests. 1           After hearing

 1 The record does not include all the dockets, and there is a
 suggestion in the transcript of the November 1, 2021, hearing
testimony from four witnesses, a judge issued the abuse

prevention order requested by S.G., and denied the harassment

prevention order requested by R.S.     The 209A order was modified

in a nonmaterial way on November 5, 2021. 2

     R.S. filed a motion for reconsideration on December 13,

2021, alleging that there was "new evidence" that represented a

"drastic change in circumstances."     The judge denied that motion

the following day.    On February 1, 2021, R.S. filed a notice of

appeal "from the denial of the Motion to Reconsider on December

14, 2021."   That appeal was untimely, but a single justice of

this court eventually allowed R.S. to file a late appeal. 3

     Discussion.     R.S. has briefed the current appeal as if it

were an appeal from the November 1, 2021, order.     Strictly

speaking, however, R.S. appealed only from the denial of his

subsequent motion for reconsideration.     Yet, he has raised no

argument as to how the judge abused his discretion in denying

that motion.   See generally, Audubon Hill S. Condominium Ass'n

that one of the requested orders may initially have been issued
on an ex parte basis. Nothing turns on this.
2 The modification allowed R.S. to retrieve his belongings under

police supervision.
3 According to the record, the 209A order was subsequently

extended on November 1, 2022, for twenty-nine days, and then on
November 30, 2022, for another year. Whether R.S. appealed the
third extension order, and whether any order remains in effect,
are not clear on the present record. In any event, the current
appeal is not moot. See Wooldridge v. Hickey, 45 Mass. App. Ct.
637, 638 (1998).

                                   2
v. Community Ass'n Underwriters of Am., Inc., 82 Mass. App. Ct.

461, 470 (2012) (discussing standard of review of denials of

motions for reconsideration).    His appeal fails on that ground

alone.

       Even if the propriety of the November 1, 2021, order was

before us, R.S.'s arguments would be unavailing.    Before turning

to R.S.'s arguments on the merits, we summarize the record

evidence.

       S.G. swore in her affidavit -- the truth of which she

reaffirmed at the evidentiary hearing -- that R.S. had exposed

himself to her while screaming "come and get some of this,"

something she described as "the most traumatic event of my

life."    She described how R.S. would yell at her "constantly,"

such as his "screaming" on the date of one of the court

hearings:    "'Not today you G.D. whore,' and spewing vulgarities

at the top of his lungs."

       Two downstairs neighbors corroborated that R.S. had abused

S.G.    They described "yelling and taunting" by R.S., and they

recounted how his "disruptive episodes have [become] more

frequent and erratic."    They expressed their own fear that R.S.

was "a danger to the life and well-being of [S.G.]," and they

noted that she had told them "how she is afraid of what he will

do to her, and that she would rather than be dead than be raped

by that man."

                                  3
     R.S., who also testified at the hearing, denied S.G.'s

allegations.   However, it was up to the judge, as fact finder,

whether to credit those denials. 4   Although the judge did not

make specific findings, it is evident from her actions that she

credited S.G.'s testimony and that of the downstairs neighbors.

In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the

issuance of the abuse prevention order, we view the evidence in

the light most favorable to the plaintiff.    Szymkowski v.

Szymkowski, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 284, 285 n.4 (2003).

     Based on this record, there was ample evidence before the

judge that R.S. had placed S.G. in reasonable fear of imminent

4 R.S. brought to the judge's attention certain police reports
that he maintained somehow contradicted S.G.'s allegations. The
record indicates that, after perusing these, the judge returned
them to R.S. R.S. makes no argument based on those police
reports, which in any event are not before us.

                                 4
serious physical harm.    See Iamele v. Asselin, 444 Mass. 734,

736-737 (2005); Ginsberg v. Blacker, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 139, 142-

148 (2006).

                                      Order dated December 14,
                                        2021, denying motion for
                                        reconsideration, affirmed.

                                      By the Court (Milkey, Henry &
                                        Desmond, JJ. 5),

                                      Assistant Clerk

Entered:    March 20, 2024.

5   The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

                                  5