Adjartey v. Cent. Div. of the Hous. Court Departmentand, 120 N.E.3d 297 (2019)

Citation: Adjartey v. Cent. Div. of the Hous. Court Departmentand, 120 N.E.3d 297 (2019)
Parent Document: Adjartey v. Cent. Div. of the Hous. Court Departmentand, 120 N.E.3d 297 (2019)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2019-04-10
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7178223/adjartey-v-cent-div-of-the-hous... ↗

Full Text

1,110 chars

Discussion. "Decisions of a single justice will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear error of law or abuse of discretion." Fogarty v. Commonwealth, 406 Mass. 103, 106, 546 N.E.2d 354 (1989). "Parties seeking relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, must demonstrate both a violation of their substantive rights and the absence of another adequate or effective avenue of relief" (quotations and citation omitted). McDonough, petitioner, 457 Mass. 512, 517-518, 930 N.E.2d 1279 (2010). Because the petitioners had adequate alternative avenues to seek review of their claims, we conclude that the single justice did not abuse his discretion or commit clear error of law in denying the petitioners' G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition.6 In light of the facts alleged in this case, however, we think it important to clarify three issues: (1) the proper application of the so-called Indigent Court Costs Law, G. L. c. 261, §§ 27A - 27G ; (2) the process for obtaining *304**834audio recordings of Housing Court proceedings; and (3) the obligation of courts to provide reasonable accommodations for parties with disabilities.

Other Sections in This Document (125)

Full Text