Reznik v. Garaffo, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-199-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 SJC‑11509 MARK REZNIK vs. RICHARD T. GARAFFO & others.[1] December 20, 2013. Practice, Civil, Intervention, Interlocutory appeal. Mark Reznik filed a petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, in the county court seeking, among other things, an order compelling the Superior Court to accept his notice of appeal from an order denying his motion to intervene in the underlying Superior Court action.[2] Reznik had sought to intervene in the underlying case pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 24 (a) (2) and (b) (2), 365 Mass. 769 (1974). When he attempted to filed a notice of appeal from that ruling, however, a second Superior Court judge ordered that the notice of appeal be returned on the ground that Reznik was not a party to the case. Reznik then attempted to file a notice of appeal from that order, which likewise was returned. Reznik’s claim that he improperly was denied an opportunity to appeal has merit. An “interlocutory order denying intervention as of right under Mass. R. Civ. P. 24 (a), 365 Mass. 769 (1974), is immediately appealable, see, e.g., Massachusetts Fed’n of Teachers v. School Comm. of Chelsea, 409 Mass. 203, 204 (1991), and when there is an appeal from a denial of a claim of intervention as of right, the court also generally considers the denial of a request for permissive intervention under Mass. R. Civ. P. 24 (b), 365 Mass. 769 (1974).” Care & Protection of Richard, 456 Mass. 1002, 1002 (2010). The parties agree that Reznik’s motion was predicated on both rule 24 (a) (2) and (b) (2). His right to appeal was effectively cut off, however, because his multiple notices of appeal were refused for filing and returned to him. We are satisfied that further attempts in the trial court to remedy the situation would have been futile, and therefore relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, was warranted. See Reznik v. District Court Dep’t of the Trial Court, 456 Mass. 1001, 1001 (2010); Elles v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Quincy, 450 Mass. 671, 673 n.8 (2008); Driscoll v. T.R. White Co., 441 Mass. 1009, 1010 (2004). The substantive merits of Reznik’s appeal from the denial of his motion to intervene are not before us. While we express no opinion on the merits of […]