You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Po Kee Wong v. Boston Retirement Board

Citations: 448 Mass. 1012; 861 N.E.2d 420; 2007 Mass. LEXIS 31

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court; February 13, 2007; Massachusetts; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, a former public school teacher, Po Kee Wong, sought judicial relief after being denied employment credits by the Boston Retirement Board. Wong's challenges spanned several administrative and judicial entities, including the division of administrative law appeals and the Contributory Retirement Appeal Board, eventually reaching the Superior Court. A procedural lapse occurred when Wong failed to timely docket his appeal to the Appeals Court, leading to a denial of his motion for late docketing by a single justice. Wong petitioned the county court for relief under G. L. c. 211.3, seeking to have the Appeals Court either allow late docketing or hear the appeal on its merits, both of which were denied. His subsequent motion for reconsideration met the same fate. Wong's appeal under Rule 2:21 was dismissed as inapplicable since it did not challenge an interlocutory ruling. The court highlighted that Wong had alternative remedies, such as appealing to a panel of the Appeals Court. Consequently, the original judgment and the order denying reconsideration were affirmed, leaving Wong without the relief he sought.

Legal Issues Addressed

Adequate Alternatives for Relief

Application: The court noted that Wong had adequate alternatives for relief, such as appealing to a panel of the Appeals Court.

Reasoning: The court noted that Wong had adequate alternatives for relief, such as appealing to a panel of the Appeals Court regarding the denial of his motion for late docketing.

Inapplicability of Rule 2:21

Application: Wong's notice of appeal under Rule 2:21 was found inapplicable as he did not challenge an interlocutory ruling.

Reasoning: Wong filed a notice of appeal under Rule 2:21; however, he did not challenge an interlocutory ruling, making Rule 2:21 inapplicable.

Relief under G. L. c. 211.3

Application: The court denied the petition for relief under G. L. c. 211.3, affirming the judgment of the single justice.

Reasoning: Po Kee Wong's appeal from a single justice's judgment and order denying his petition for relief under G. L. c. 211.3 has been affirmed.

Timely Filing of Appeals

Application: Wong failed to timely docket his appeal to the Appeals Court, and his motion for late docketing was subsequently denied.

Reasoning: After failing to timely docket an appeal to the Appeals Court, his motion for late docketing was denied by a single justice.