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).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT 23-P-404 S.G.

vs. R.S.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0 After an evidentiary hearing, a District Court judge on November 1, 2021, issued a one-year abuse prevention order against R.S. pursuant to G. L. c. 209A. R.S. did not appeal from the 209A order but filed a motion for reconsideration that the same judge denied. On R.S.'s appeal, we affirm.

Background. S.G. and R.S. lived together as roommates in an apartment in Somerville. In the fall of 2021, they each filed an application for a restraining order against the other.

S.G. sought an order pursuant to G. L. c. 209A, while R.S. sought a harassment prevention order pursuant to G. L. c. 258A.

An evidentiary hearing was held on November 1, 2021, with respect to the parties' dueling requests. 1 After hearing

that one of the requested orders may initially have been issued on an ex parte basis. Nothing turns on this.

v. Community Ass'n Underwriters of Am., Inc., 82 Mass. App. Ct. 461, 470 (2012) (discussing standard of review of denials of motions for reconsideration). His appeal fails on that ground alone.

Even if the propriety of the November 1, 2021, order was before us, R.S.'s arguments would be unavailing. Before turning to R.S.'s arguments on the merits, we summarize the record evidence.

S.G. swore in her affidavit -- the truth of which she reaffirmed at the evidentiary hearing -- that R.S. had exposed himself to her while screaming "come and get some of this," something she described as "the most traumatic event of my life." She described how R.S. would yell at her "constantly," such as his "screaming" on the date of one of the court hearings: "'Not today you G.D. whore,' and spewing vulgarities at the top of his lungs." Two downstairs neighbors corroborated that R.S. had abused S.G. They described "yelling and taunting" by R.S., and they recounted how his "disruptive episodes have [become] more frequent and erratic." They expressed their own fear that R.S. was "a danger to the life and well-being of [S.G.]," and they noted that she had told them "how she is afraid of what he will do to her, and that she would rather than be dead than be raped by that man."

R.S., who also testified at the hearing, denied S.G.'s allegations. However, it was up to the judge, as fact finder, whether to credit those denials. 4 Although the judge did not make specific findings, it is evident from her actions that she credited S.G.'s testimony and that of the downstairs neighbors.

In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the issuance of the abuse prevention order, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Szymkowski v. Szymkowski, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 284, 285 n.4 (2003).

Based on this record, there was ample evidence before the judge that R.S. had placed S.G. in reasonable fear of imminent

serious physical harm. See Iamele v. Asselin, 444 Mass. 734, 736-737 (2005); Ginsberg v. Blacker, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 139, 142- (2006).

Order dated December 14, 2021, denying motion for reconsideration, affirmed.

By the Court (Milkey, Henry & Desmond, JJ. 5),

Assistant Clerk

Entered: March 20, 2024.