K.R. vs. N.S.

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
25-P-563
K.R.
vs.
N.S.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The defendant, N.S., appeals from the extension of a
harassment prevention order issued in favor of the plaintiff,
K.R., pursuant to G. L. c. 258E, § 3 (258E order). On appeal,
the defendant essentially argues that the judge abused her
discretion because the plaintiff failed to present any new
evidence establishing a continued need for the order. We
affirm.
Background. On February 1, 2023, a judge of the District
Court issued an ex parte harassment prevention order against the
defendant, based on the testimony of the plaintiff and a
supporting affidavit, in which the plaintiff claimed that the
defendant, who was the plaintiff's upstairs neighbor, committed

2
three or more acts of harassment against her. See G. L.
c. 258E, § 1; Gassman v. Reason, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 7 (2016).
The plaintiff also reported that there had been several
incidents of "harassment" and "violent outbursts" by the
defendant, alleging that the defendant threw a pot at the
plaintiff's father and caused damage to the plaintiff's front
door, hired landscapers to pour dirt and remove flowers planted
by the plaintiff in the condominium building's yard, sent an e-
mail message referencing "religious texts," and stalked the
plaintiff using security cameras.
The plaintiff's affidavit also alleged that the defendant
continually played her music at an excessive level causing the
entire home to vibrate. The plaintiff sent the defendant an e-
mail message requesting that the defendant turn down the volume,
but the defendant responded by turning the volume louder and
stomping on the floor, causing the plaintiff to suffer
headaches. According to the plaintiff, when the police
responded to a noise complaint, the defendant turned down the
music but then blared it again and stomped her feet once the
police left.
At several two-party hearings, the 258E order was extended.
Relevant here, at a two-party hearing on February 5, 2025, the
plaintiff requested that the order be extended again. The
plaintiff testified that she did not feel safe due to the

3
defendant's history of harassment and that she needed the order
extended so that she could feel safe in her home because the
defendant was her neighbor. The defendant opposed the
extension. After hearing from the plaintiff and counsel for the
defendant, the judge extended the order for one year. This
appeal followed.
Discussion. 1. Sufficiency of the evidence of the
original 258E order. To obtain a harassment prevention order, a
plaintiff must demonstrate "harassment," which the statute
defines in relevant part as "[three] or more acts of willful and
malicious conduct aimed at a specific person committed with the
intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property
and that does in fact cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage
to property." G. L. c. 258E, § 1. To the extent that the
defendant asserts that the original 258E order improperly was
improperly issued due to insufficient evidence of three separate
acts of harassment, that issue is not before us because the
defendant did not timely appeal from the issuance of the
original 258E order.1 Cf. Ginsberg v. Blacker, 67 Mass. App. Ct.
139, 140 n.2 (2006).
1 We note that included in the appendices is the transcript
from the ex-parte order issued on February 1, 2023 and the
plaintiff's affidavit in support of the harassment prevention
order. However, the transcript from the two-party hearing on

4
2. February 5, 2025, 258E extension order. The defendant
claims that the judge abused her discretion when she extended
the order for one year. We review the decision to extend a 258E
order for abuse of discretion. See Yasmin Y. v. Queshon Q., 101
Mass. App. Ct. 252, 256 (2022). At an extension hearing, the
plaintiff is required to establish, "by a preponderance of the
evidence, that extension of the order is reasonably necessary to
protect the plaintiff from further harassment." Danny D. v. Eli
E., 102 Mass. App. Ct. 901, 901 (2023). At an extension
hearing, the defendant is not allowed to challenge the evidence
underlying the initial order, and the plaintiff does not need to
reestablish the facts sufficient to support the original order.
See Yasmin Y., supra at 258. Further, while the judge may
consider the basis for the original order to determine the risk
of future harassment if the existing order expires, "[t]his does
not mean that the [defendant] may challenge the evidence
underlying the initial order." Iamele v. Asselin, 444 Mass.
734, 740 (2005). The judge considers "the totality of the
conditions that exist at the time that the plaintiff seeks the
extension, viewed in light of the initial [258E] order." Id. at
741.
February 15, 2023, in which the order was extended for six
months, was not provided.

5
At the extension hearing, counsel for the defendant
challenged the issuance of the harassment order. The judge
correctly stated that she was "bound by the finding that the
[j]udge had when they issued the order that -- that [it]
qualified for a harassment order. My job today is to determine
whether there's still a need for this order . . . [w]hether her
fear of your client is still reasonable given the
circumstances." The judge then properly considered the
plaintiff's affidavit in support of the original order and asked
the plaintiff why she was requesting that the order be extended.
The plaintiff testified that she needed the order extended to
prevent the defendant from further harassing the plaintiff. The
plaintiff told the judge that the defendant has harassed her
since 2017, and that because the plaintiff and defendant resided
in the same condominium building, she needed the order as she
was "not safe from [the defendant's] abusive tactics or her
harassment tactics."2
We discern no "clear error of judgment in weighing the
factors relevant to the decision" (quotation and citation
omitted), L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169, 185 n.27 (2014),
and conclude that the judge did not abuse her discretion in
2 Counsel for the defendant cross-examined the plaintiff and
then argued that the order should not be extended because there
was no evidence of ongoing harassment since the last extension
order.

6
extending the 258E order. There was adequate evidence to
support the extension. The defendant argues that the
plaintiff's testimony was not credible, however, "[w]e accord
the credibility determinations of the judge who heard the
testimony of the parties . . . [and] observed their demeanor
. . . the utmost deference" (quotation and citation omitted).
Noelle N. v. Frasier F., 97 Mass. App. Ct. 660, 664 (2020).
Next, the defendant argues that the judge erred in
extending the harassment order because the plaintiff failed to
establish continued harassment and no further incidents of
harassment occurred. We disagree, as the plaintiff was not
required to present new evidence of harassment to establish a
continued need for the order. See G. L. c. 258E, § 3 (d) ("The
fact that harassment has not occurred during the pendency of an
order shall not, in itself, constitute sufficient ground for
denying or failing to extend the order, or allowing an order to
expire or to be vacated or for refusing to issue a new order").
3. Changed circumstances. Finally, the defendant argues
that the 258E order should be vacated because of a material
change in circumstances. The defendant states that, after the
February 2025 hearing, the building that both the plaintiff and
defendant resided in was destroyed by fire. Generally, on
appeal, we review the decision based on the record before the
trial judge. The subsequent fire in the condominium building,

7
and the fact that the parties may no longer live in the same
building, were not evidence before the trial judge and cannot be
used to demonstrate that the judge erred in her decision
extending the order. However, when a significant change in
circumstances occurs after the hearing on the extension of the
258E order, either party can file a motion to modify or
terminate an existing order. See G. L. c. 258E, § 3(e). We
express no opinion on the merits of the filing of such a motion.
Extension order dated
February 5, 2025, affirmed.
By the Court (Sacks, Walsh &
D'Angelo, JJ.3),
Clerk
Entered: October 9, 2026.
3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.