TARASUIK v. 162 WASHINGTON LLC (2026)

The petitioner, Ryan Tarasuik, appeals from the judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for extraordinary relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm.

Tarasuik is a litigant in the Northeast Division of the Housing Court Department. In his petition to the single justice, he challenged the validity of a judgment of civil contempt that entered against him in the Housing Court, as well as the efforts of a Housing Court judge to enforce that judgment. The single justice denied Tarasuik's petition, concluding that it did not present “the type of exceptional matter that requires the court's extraordinary intervention.” Commonwealth v. Fontanez, 482 Mass. 22, 25, 120 N.E.3d 707 (2019). Tarasuik moved for reconsideration, and his motion was denied. Tarasuik now appeals from the judgment of the single justice.²

Because Tarasuik failed to demonstrate the absence of adequate alternative relief, he was not entitled to relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, and we discern no error of law or abuse of discretion in the decision of the single justice to deny Tarasuik's petition. See Fontanez, 482 Mass. at 24-25, 120 N.E.3d 707. Specifically, Tarasuik did not establish why he could not have challenged the validity of the civil contempt judgment in the ordinary course of appeal, that is, by appealing directly from the civil contempt judgment. See Gaines v. Attorney Gen., 495 Mass. 1016, 1018, 249 N.E.3d 1156 (2025), quoting Strahan v. Superior Court Dep't of the Trial Court, 452 Mass. 1017, 1018, 896 N.E.2d 589 (2008) (“judgment of civil contempt is an appealable final judgment”). As Tarasuik has not demonstrated the absence of adequate alternative relief, the judgment of the single justice is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

2.   Tarasuik has filed a memorandum and appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), but rule 2:21 does not apply here because the civil contempt judgment from which Tarasuik appeals is not an interlocutory order but an appealable final judgment. See Gaines v. Attorney Gen., 495 Mass. 1016, 1018, 249 N.E.3d 1156 (2025). Although Tarasuik's appeal is not limited by the requirements of rule 2:21, nevertheless, for the reasons described herein, he was not entitled to relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.

RESCRIPT