HANEEFAH YAHYA vs. ROCKTOP PARTNERS I, LP.

Haneefah Yahya appeals from a judgment of the county court denying, without a hearing, her petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. In her petition, Yahya sought a stay of execution of a default judgment issued against her in a

Page 1036

summary process action in the Boston Municipal Court (BMC) commenced by Rocktop Partners I, LP (Rocktop). On June 27, 2016, a single justice of this court granted a stay of execution pending the BMC's resolution of certain outstanding motions that were scheduled for hearing the following day. At the hearing on June 28, 2016, a judge in the BMC denied Yahya's motion to waive the appeal bond, denied her motion for relief from judgment, and granted an extension of time in which to file a notice of appeal. The BMC docket indicates that Yahya appealed to the Appellate Division of the BMC as to the denial of the motion to waive the appeal bond and that, on or about January 12, 2017, the Appellate Division issued a decision, apparently affirming the denial. [Note 1] On October 30, 2017, Rocktop filed a motion to reissue the execution for possession. That motion was allowed on November 7, 2017, and stayed until November 14, 2017. Yahya then filed, in the county court, a supplement to her petition, challenging the allowance of Rocktop's motion and urging that the default judgment and execution be vacated. A different single justice stayed the execution pending a decision on Yahya's petition. After Rocktop filed a response, the same single justice denied Yahya's petition without a hearing and vacated the stay. [Note 2] We affirm the denial of relief.

Yahya has filed a memorandum and appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires a party challenging an interlocutory ruling of the trial court to "set forth the reasons why review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means." That rule does not apply, as Yahya is not challenging an interlocutory ruling of the trial court. Nonetheless, it is clear that the judgment of the BMC is subject to review in the ordinary appellate process. "Our general superintendence power under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is extraordinary and to be exercised sparingly, not as a substitute for the normal appellate process or merely to provide an additional layer of appellate review after the normal process has run its course." Bishay v. Land Ct. Dep't of the Trial Ct., 477 Mass. 1032, 1033 (2017), quoting Fennick v. Kittredge, 460 Mass. 1012, 1012 (2011).

Judgment affirmed.

Page 1037

The case was submitted on briefs.

Robert C. Johnson, Jr., for the petitioner.

Patrick J. McDonald for the respondent.