Massachusetts Middlesex Restraining Order Jurisdiction Abuse Discretion Lawyers Attorneys

YURI KRAYTSBERG vs. YEVGENYA KRAYTSBERGG. L. c. 211, § 3, because "another remedy was
Middlesex Division of the Probate and Family Courtexpressly provided.  The petitioner also purports to
Department and Newton Division of the District Courtseek review of the District Court's original issuance of
Department.the c. 209A order in September, 1993, before the
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTSdecision in Zullo, supra. Even assuming that the
July 6, 1998petitioner properly sought relief under G. L. c. 211, §
Facts:3, he failed to present evidence from which the single
On December 3, 1997, the petitioner filed a petitionjustice could have awarded him the relief he sought.
under G. L. c. 211, § 3, asking a single justice of thisThere was no basis on which the single justice could
court to vacate two restraining orders. A judge inhave concluded that the original c. 209A order was
the Middlesex Probate and Family Court issued theprocedurally defective. Therefore the single justice
first restraining order on February 16, 1993, under G.did not abuse his discretion or make a clear error of
L. c. 208, § 34B, pursuant to the court's jurisdictionlaw in denying the petitioner relief.
over the divorce between the petitioner and his wife,As for the restraining order under G. L. c. 208, §
one of the respondents in this case. A District Court34B, the petitioner could have sought relief from that
judge issued the second order against the petitionerorder in the Appeals Court at the time of its
on September 10, 1993, pursuant to G. L. c. 209A;issuance.  Therefore, G. L. c. 211, § 3, was not a
the District Court judge has renewed the orderproper avenue for relief from that order.  The
every year since, most recently on September 11,petitioner implies that the Probate Court took no
1997.  The single justice denied the petition, and theaction on a motion he filed in August, 1997, seeking
ex-husband appealed the order.to vacate the c. 208, § 34B, restraining order.
Issue:Therefore, he claims, he had no remedy other than
- Whether the Single justice erred in denying theto petition this court under c. 211, § 3. The record
petitioner relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3?merely indicates that the Probate Court continued a
Discussion:hearing on the motion to vacate, at the request of
This court will not reverse a single justice's denial of arespondent's counsel, because of a scheduling conflict.
petition brought pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, unlessEven if the court had failed to act on the motion, as
the single justice abused his or her discretion or madethe petitioner claims, there were other remedies
a clear error of law.  The single justice neitheravailable before seeking relief under c. 211, § 3.
abused his discretion nor made a clear error of law inThe order of the single justice denying the petition
the instant case.  The litigants seeking judicial reviewfor relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is hereby affirmed.
of an order made pursuant to G. L. c. 209A areDisclaimer:
directed to the Appeals Court.  Therefore, inThese summaries are provided by the SRIS Law
challenging the September, 1997, renewal of the c.Group.  They represent the firm's unofficial views of
209A order, the petitioner could not avail himself ofthe Justices' opinions.