The petitioner, Michael Elbery, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, which sought relief from an order of a Superior Court judge that limited to sixty pages the length of the memorandum and supporting materials that the petitioner would initially be allowed to submit in support of his motion for a new trial in a criminal cáse. We affirm.

We have repeatedly held that relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is properly denied where there are other routes by which a petitioning party may adequately seek relief. See, e.g., Kraytsberg v. Kraytsberg, 427 Mass. 1008, 1009 (1998); Matthews v. D’Arcy, 425 Mass. 1021, 1022 (1997). Here, the *1008petitioner has another available remedy. He can appeal from the judge’s ruling pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (c) (8), as appearing in 420 Mass. 1502 (1995), following the entry of a final order on his motion for a new trial, if his motion for a new trial is denied. Having failed to demonstrate that this traditional appeal remedy would not provide full and effective relief, the petitioner is not entitled to invoice the extraordinary relief set forth in G. L. c. 211, § 3.1

Judgment affirmed.