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

1,286 chars

With regard to the petitioners' specific claims regarding fee waivers for the cost of audio recordings, G. L. c. 261, § 27D, allows for appellate review in "any case where the court denies a request for waiver, substitution or payment by the commonwealth of fees and costs." And with regard to any potential claims under art. 114 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act (MERA), or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the petitioners could have initiated a separate action in a court of competent jurisdiction or argued on direct appeal that they were prejudiced by a judge's erroneous denial of a request for reasonable accommodations. See McDonough, petitioner, 457 Mass. 512, 520, 930 N.E.2d 1279 (2010) ; G. L. c. 93, § 103 (b ) ("Any person whose rights under the provisions of subsection [a ] [of MERA] have been violated may commence a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief ... in the superior court ..."); 42 U.S.C. § 12133 (describing "remedies, procedures, and rights" available to persons alleging violation of Title II of ADA). To the extent that the petitioners allege that they were prejudiced by other Housing Court actions, they could likewise have pursued those claims on direct appeal.

Other Sections in This Document (125)

Full Text