Opinion
19-P-1536
11-16-2020
BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF STONEHAM v. KELECHI LINARDON.
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
This is an appeal from the single justice's September 9, 2019 denial of Kelechi Linardon's third motion for reconsideration of the denial of Linardon's second motion to docket her appeal late. The order must be affirmed because Linardon has failed to show, or even allege, that the single justice erred in the September 9, 2019 ruling. Instead, Linardon argues the merits of her intended appeal of the Appellate Tax Board's (board) denial of her application for abatement of a 2016 motor vehicle excise tax assessed by the town of Stoneham. Yet, that intended appeal of the board's decision is not before this court because Linardon failed to docket the appeal in a timely fashion.
Linardon's first motion to docket her appeal late was denied without prejudice to renewal before February 20, 2018, if accompanied by a showing of excusable neglect causing the late docketing, a meritorious appellate issue, and that the notice of appeal was timely. Linardon took no further action, however, until May 2018, when she refiled her motion to docket the appeal late (second motion to docket appeal late), which was denied as it was both untimely and did not cure the deficiencies of the first motion. Linardon thereafter filed three motions for reconsideration, each of which was denied.
On September 9, 2019, the single justice denied Linardon's third motion for reconsideration and noted on the docket that "[n]o action will be taken on any further filings as the matter is closed." Nonetheless, Linardon filed a motion to recuse the single justice and a "Request for Panel Justice Review on Renew Motion to Docket Appeal Late." The single justice denied the motion to recuse and exercised her discretion to accept the submission for docketing (despite the previous order closing the matter), construed it as a notice of appeal, and referred the matter for panel review. Thus, what was referred to this panel is the single justice's September 9, 2019 order denying Linardon's third motion for reconsideration.
Linardon has made no showing that the single justice abused her discretion in denying Linardon's third motion for reconsideration. Bigelow v. Massachusetts Courts Promulgator of Official Forms, 484 Mass. 1056, 1057 (2020), quoting Adjartey v. Central Div. of the Housing Court Dep't, 481 Mass. 830, 833 (2019) ("Decisions of a single justice will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear error of law or abuse of discretion"). Specifically, Linardon has not addressed the issue of excusable neglect whatsoever. Accordingly, we affirm.
Given the result we reach, we need not act on Linardon's motion to strike the board's supplemental record appendix. Likewise, the result compels the conclusion that there was no abuse of discretion in the single justice's October 1, 2020 denial of Linardon's motion for relief from the tax lien pending appeal.
Order of the single justice dated September 9, 2019, affirmed.
By the Court (Massing, Singh & Grant, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
/s/
Clerk Entered: November 16, 2020.