Ymca of Greater Boston, Inc. v. Hyh'nes Bakri.

── Ymca of Greater Boston, Inc. v. Hyh'nes Bakri. ── Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General 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-404 YMCA OF GREATER BOSTON, INC. vs. HYH'NES BAKRI. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0 After a jury-waived trial, a judge of the Eastern Housing Court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, YMCA of Greater Boston, Inc. (YMCA), against the defendant, Hyh'nes Bakri (Bakri), on numerous claims in a consolidated action relating to a tenancy dispute between the parties. 1 Bakri appeals from this judgment, 2 asserting numerous errors on appeal 1YMCA states that two entities, Hallkeen Management, Inc., and Cruz Management Company, Inc., "were [also] parties in this action and join in on [YMCA's] [b]rief." While those entities were named as defendants to a small claims action brought by Bakri, which was consolidated with the Housing Court action brought by YMCA, those entities were not named as plaintiffs in YMCA's complaint and have not filed appearances in this appeal. 2Bakri filed her notice of appeal prior to final judgment entering below. We exercise our discretion to hear this appeal because the premature filing of the notice of appeal did not and requesting that the judgment be vacated and damages be entered in her favor. We affirm. As a preliminary matter, we decline to address a number of Bakri's claims that fail to comply with the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure, 3 fail to rise to the level of appellate argument, 4 or were not raised below. 5 We recognize that Bakri is prejudice YMCA. See Roch v. Mollica, 481 Mass. 164, 165 n.2 (2019). 3 These claims include her references to the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; G. L. c. 12, § 11H-11J; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 42 U.S.C. § 2000d; 42 U.S.C. § 3604; G. L. c. 151B; and alleged violations of Housing Court orders. Bakri filed an informal brief pursuant to the Appeals Court Informal Brief Pilot Program (program) for self- represented litigants, but the program still requires compliance with the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Appeals Court Informal Brief Pilot Program, https://www.mass.gov/info-details/appeals-court-informal-brief- pilot-program. 4 These claims include "substantial civil rights injustice," "loophole disguised as procedure," and "plac[ing] the burden to fix [YMCA's] continued noncompliance" on Bakri. The program requires "adequate appellate argument," meaning that the "Appeals Court does not have to consider any argument that is not discussed in the brief or that lacks legal or factual support." Appeals Court Informal Brief Pilot Program, https://www.mass.gov/info-details/appeals-court-informal-brief- pilot-program. 5 These claims include violation of the right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment; violation of art. 11 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights; violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and