Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Citation
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Parent Document
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 2019-02-25
Other Sections in This Document (23)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
Full Text
990 charsHere, the motion judge concluded that the maximum amount that the plaintiffs could recover on their c. 186 retaliation claims was the value of "three month's rent," $ 8,190. Consequently, the judge dismissed those claims for failing to meet the monetary threshold required for actions brought in the Superior Court. See G. L. c. 212, §§ 3, 3A (b ). Following that dismissal, the plaintiffs' "exclusive appellate remedy" was an appeal to a single justice of our court within seven days of the notice of dismissal. Bussell, 58 Mass. App. Ct. at 915. See G. L. c. 212, § 3A (c ). The judgment which dismissed the plaintiffs' c. 186 retaliation claims entered on February 14, 2018. The plaintiffs did not appeal from the dismissal of those claims to a single justice of the Appeals Court, as required by G. L. c. 212, § 3A (c ). Because the plaintiffs' purported appeals from the judgment insofar as it dismissed their c. 186 retaliation claims are not properly before us, we must dismiss them.