Opinion
10-P-1812
09-28-2011
ADOPTION OF PERCIVAL (and a companion case).
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 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 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.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
Assuming, without deciding, that the single justice possessed authority to grant the requested relief, and for substantially the reasons set forth in his written memorandum and order, we discern no abuse of discretion in his determination that the mother did not establish 'good cause' justifying leave to file late a notice of appeal from the denial, on May 15, 2009, of her April 29, 2009, motion to vacate the judgment entered on May 5, 2008. We accordingly affirm the order denying the mother's renewed motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal.
At oral argument, the mother suggested that her separate appeal (originally designated by docket number 11-P-340, and later consolidated with the present appeal) raised separate issues for our determination. However, the lone reference in the mother's brief to any such issues is a general comment, in footnote 11, that 'appellate counsel has never been granted access to review the actual courts file' [sic]. The comment is unsupported by citation and does not specify (by reference to the docket or otherwise) any documents withheld from her. The argument is accordingly waived. See Wolfe v. Gormally, 440 Mass. 699, 707 n.10 (2004). See also Commonwealth v. Lydon, 413 Mass. 309, 317-318 (1992).
So ordered.
By the Court (Kafker, Green & Grainger, JJ.),