Court Opinion

ID: 9890778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-16 14:06:34.844998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.605057
License: Public Domain

decision was rendered it was an abuse of discretion.

     Conclusion.   The orders allowing the motion to withdraw and

denying the motions for reconsideration are affirmed.4

                                     So ordered.

                                     By the Court (Green, C.J.,
                                       Rubin & Hand, JJ.5),

                                     Clerk

Entered:   October 16, 2023.

4 A single justice allowed the late filing of the notice of
appeal in this case. The firm sought review of that order
before a second single justice. That second single justice
treated it as notice of cross appeal, and permitted the firm to
raise its claim with respect to the first single justice order
in its brief before us. Although, therefore, that cross appeal
is properly before us, as we read the firm's brief it asks us to
affirm the order allowing the motion to withdraw and, only
alternatively, to act on its cross appeal. As we are affirming
the order allowing the motion to withdraw, the order of the
single justice will therefore also be affirmed. The appellant
Tran has also filed two notices of appeal from denials of
motions for reconsideration of the order allowing the motion to
withdraw. In light of our conclusion on the merits of the
allowance of the motion to withdraw, those denials are affirmed.
5 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

                                11