DeMayo v. Quinn (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-015-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 14-P-398 Appeals Court CAROL DEMAYO vs. DAVID QUINN. No. 14-P-398. Berkshire. November 3, 2014. – February 24, 2015. Present: Green, Wolohojian, & Blake, JJ. Harassment Prevention. Civil Harassment. Protective Order. Words, “Specific person.” Complaint for protection from harassment filed in the Northern Berkshire Division of the District Court Department on December 13, 2013. The case was heard by Michael J. Ripps, J. Mark J. Pasquariello for the defendant. BLAKE, J. On December 17, 2013, following an ex parte hearing, a harassment prevention order (order) was issued against the defendant pursuant to G. L. c. 258E. A further evidentiary hearing was held, at which the plaintiff testified, and the order was extended for one year. The defendant appeals from the extension of the order, claiming that his conduct was neither “willful or malicious,” nor “aimed at a specific person,” as required by the statute. We agree as to the latter point, and accordingly vacate the order. 1. Background. The undisputed facts are as follows. The plaintiff owns a horse boarding facility; she also resides at the same property with her husband. In late August, 2013, the plaintiff discovered that particular items in the horse barn were either missing or had been rearranged. When the episodes continued, and a horse’s allergy medication and needles disappeared, the plaintiff set up a video camera and contacted the police. The police then set up their own surveillance camera, which captured an unauthorized individual, eventually identified as the defendant, engaging in various activities inside the barn on five different occasions. The videotape recording of those incidents showed the defendant taking items from the barn’s refrigerator, rearranging hay bales, and throwing items into a horse’s stall.[1] Although the plaintiff is not the legal owner of the horse involved, the facility was responsible for its care. 2. Legal requirements. “An Act relative to harassment prevention orders,” codified as G. L. c. 258E, was enacted to: (1) provide protection to victims of sexual assault, stalking, and criminal harassment that is unavailable under the domestic abuse prevention law, G. L. c. 209A; and (2) make violations of these orders punishable as a crime. Seney v. Morhy, 467 Mass. 58, 60 (2014).[2] In order to obtain a c. 258E order, a plaintiff must demonstrate that she is suffering from harassment. ”Harassment,” insofar as relevant here, […]