Case Results » Restraining Orders

Our client is a plumber. Just a few days ago he was served with harassment prevention order under G.L. c. 258E. The accuser claimed that for years our client went to her home when her husband was working and forced her to perform oral sex on him. She claimed that the most recent time this happened was in front of her 6 year old son. Our client denied that any of this ever happened. After a contentious hearing, the judge agreed with us that the harassment prevention order should not be extended. 

Read More in Restraining Orders

Our client is an engineer with doctorate degrees in several disciplines. He and his wife are going through a very contentious divorce. Apparently things were not favoring the wife in the probate court prompting her to fabricate a story about her husband contacting her in violation of the 209A section 7 restraining order. A clerk magistrate hearing was scheduled and we were retained to represent the man at that hearing. The clerk found in our client's favor and the criminal complaint did not issue. 

Read More in Restraining Order Violations 

Our client and his former wife have been battling over child custody, visitation and support for years. The woman was awarded a harassment prevention order HPO against our client many years ago. In the past two years the ex-wife has accused our client of harassing her and of violating the harassment prevention order. In all, our client was charged in five complaints with these violations, crimes under G.L. c. 258E section 9. He was also charged with criminal harassment under G.L. c. 265 section 43A. Attorney Neyman represented the man in all of these cases. Today, we succeeded in getting the criminal harassment case and two HPO violations cases dismissed. Pretrial probation under G.L. c. 276 section 87 was given as a disposition on the remaining cases. All cases will be dismissed shortly. 

Read More in Restraining Order Violations

Our clients are mother and son with strong military connections. The mother is actively involved in helping veterans get housing and jobs in eastern Massachusetts. The plaintiff is one of the veterans she helped. She loaned him money for food, pots and pans, clothing and household items to get started in a new life. She gave him rides to and from work for several weeks until he could find alternative transportation. When she asked to be repaid the man became violent. The women persisted trying to get reimbursed. Fearing the man's rages she asked her son to speak with the man. Once he did the man applied for a 209A restraining order against both of them. He claimed that the son assaulted him and broke his front door. Attorney Neyman was hired to represent the mother and son. After a hearing the restraining order did not issue. 

Read More in Restraining Orders

Our client is in a branch of the military with the intention of remaining there for life. Several months ago he was charged with violating a restraining order under G.L. c. 209A by an unscrupulous police officer. The officer claimed that our client failed to advise him of the location of certain weapons that he possessed. The officer claimed that this was a violation of the conditions of the restraining order and he applied for and obtained a criminal complaint against our client. A judge dismissed the case at our request. The district attorney's office investigated the possibility of appealing the case and ultimately decided not to. The case is dismissed. 

Read More in Restraining Order Violations 

Our client is a famous chef who owns several restaurants throughout the country. He has appeared on several television shows and at one time had his own culinary show. A former girlfriend took out a 209A restraining order against him over a year ago. Later, she claimed that he violated the order by hanging around the parking lot of her home, an area excluded by the restraining order. Our investigator did a great job gathering evidence showing that the victim and all supporting witnesses had lied about their observations. Accordingly, today the case was dismissed. 

Read More in Restraining Orders

Our client, a successful software engineer, was charged with violating a 209A restraining order. The victim is his wife who, through a probate lawyer, provided the judge with evidence of a lengthy history of documented violence and abuse. The prosecutor asked for jail time. Our office was able to show the judge our client's mental health records contradicting the wife's allegations. We were then able to convince the judge to continue what matter without a finding. All charges will be dismissed in three months. 

Read More in Continuance Without a Finding

The defendant had a 209A restraining order pending against him. He is a local car salesman whose job was in jeopardy if the restraining order was not vacated. The man hired our office to fight the extension of the order. Today, Attorney Neyman demonstrated to the judge that no abuse had occurred nor was there a threat of any abuse in accordance with the language of the statute. We were able to convince the judge not to extend the order and have the same vacated. 

Read More in Restraining Orders

Our client had a harassment prevention order pursuant to G.L. c. 258E issued against her about fifteen months ago. Afraid that she would lose her job she hired our office to appeal the order. Today, pursuant to Massachusetts Rule of Appellate Procedure 23 the Massachusetts Appeals Court appealed the order. They held that the plaintiff failed to show the necessary three predicate acts of abuse. The lower court was ordered to direct law enforcement to destroy all records of the vacated order. 

Read More in Criminal Appeals

Our client is a firefighter. Over a year ago he was in a relationship with a woman that ended. Afterwards, the woman lost her job. She believed that the defendant, our client had something to do with this. He did not. Nevertheless, the woman went to exact revenge against him. She took out a restraining order claiming that our client had raped her over a year ago, G.L. c. 265 section 22, that he had been stalking her and that he had been harassing her. Attorney Neyman was hired to vacate the 209A restraining order. A hearing was scheduled. Attorney Neyman was able to demonstrate to the judge that the allegations were fabricated and stale. He further convinced the judge that the woman's actions were retaliatory. The restraining order was immediately vacated. 

Read More in Rape

The defendant and the complaining witness were in a dating relationship for several years. A few months ago the two broke up. The defendant owned the home the two lived in and asked the woman to leave. She refused and was ultimately legally forced to do so. She later went to the police and claimed that the defendant had been engaging in illegal sexual acts. He was charged with allegedly committing those acts under G.L. c. 272 section 29C. Continuing her vindictive pattern the woman went to another court and applied for a restraining order under G.L. c. 209A. The defendant hired Attorney Neyman to represent him on that matter as well. Today, the parties had the hearing. Attorney Neyman was able to convince the judge not to issue the order. The matter is dismissed. 

This case was determined telephonically due to the courts being closed

Read More in Sex Crimes

Towards the end of last year the defendant was charged violating a harassment prevention order under G.L. c. 258E. He was released on personal recognizance with conditions that he stay away from the victim, her place of employment, her home and some of the cities and towns where she spent a significant amount of time. After a few months the defendant was accused of violating the conditions of release and his bail was revoked under G.L. c. 276 section 58B for ninety (90) days. He then hired our office to represent him. We moved the Court for a reinstatement of bail and the judge granted our request thereby releasing our client under his original conditions. 

This case was determined telephonically due to the courts being closed

Read More in Harassment Prevention Orders

Several months ago our client was served with a 209A restraining order by his wife. The order precluded him from contacting her directly or indirectly. That notwithstanding, our client sent various documents to his wife in direct violation of the order. Unbeknownst to him these actions constitute a violation of the 209A order. The wife called the police and advised them about what happened. Our client was arrested and charged with violation of a 209A restraining order, a misdemeanor in Massachusetts. Attorney Neyman was retained to represent him. Today, all charges were dismissed. 

Read More in 209A Violations

The defendant, a non-citizen is charged with domestic assault and battery under G.L. c. 265 Section 13M in a suburban Boston court. At the time of arraignment his wife, the complaining witness, filed for and obtained a 209A restraining order against him. The order prevented him not only from contacting her but also from contacting their newborn child. Our office moved to have the restraining order vacated. After hearing today we prevailed on the judge to vacate the restraining order. There remains a no abuse order associated with the still pending criminal case. 

Read More in G.L. c. 265 Section 13M

The defendant and the plaintiff were in a dating relationship. As a result of suspicions of infidelity the two got into an argument. The argument became physical and our client allegedly struck the other party several times in a violent manner. An emergency restraining order under G.L. c. 209A was issued without our client having an opportunity to defend. A return date was scheduled for today to see if the judge would extend the order. Our office was hired to represent the woman. After a full hearing Attorney Neyman was able to convince the judge not to extend the order. 

Read More in Domestic Assault and Battery

Less than ten days ago a local college sophomore received a restraining order pursuant to G.L. c. 209A from his former girlfriend. In support of her petition for the order the woman claimed that our client had stalked her dormitory, texted her incessantly and forced her to have sex with him. She further complained that our client owned firearms and that he was physically and verbally abusive to her. The man hired our office. Today was the return date for the extension of the order. Attorney Neyman was able to have the order vacated. This will not be on his CORI.

Read More in Stalking

The defendant and the victim dated and have a child together. They are involved in a nasty, contentious child custody and visitation dispute. In an effort to secure an advantage in that forum the victim fabricated a story of abuse about our client and applied for a G.L. c. 209A restraining order. A hearing was scheduled for today. We had obtained numerous police reports initiated by the victim in other courts that we were able to show were total prevarications. We explained to the judge in this court that all of these false accusations were designed to manipulate the collateral proceedings. The judge accepted our argument and did not issue the restraining order.

Read More in Domestic Assault and Battery

Just recently our office successfully defended a restraining order request where the victim claimed that she had been raped by the defendant. She again petitioned the court for a restraining order under G.L. c. 209A arguing some additional facts. Again, our office was able to convince the judge to deny the petition.

Read More in Sex Crimes

The defendant was accused of raping a woman with whom he had a relationship. No rape charges were brought against the man however the woman then filed a 209A abuse protection order application. A hearing was scheduled for today. Our office represented the man. The requested order did not issue.

Read More in Sex Crimes

The complainant and the defendant are neighbors. Several months ago the complainant went into court and obtained a 258E harassment prevention order. The defendants were not represented by counsel at that time. The judge issued the order which effectively prevented the defendants from using their home and yard. Feeling confined and trapped the defendants ultimately hired our office. We obtained a copy of the harassment prevention order hearing transcript and scheduled a hearing on our motion to vacate the order. Today, our office succeeded in getting the order vacated.

Read More in Restraining Orders

The defendant is facing sexual assault and vandalism charges in the Lynn District Court. Today was a scheduled status conference at which the defendant expected to obtain discovery and possibly schedule a trial date. When he got to court he and his attorney were surprised to see the victim of the vandalism case appear and request a 209A restraining order. The victim claimed that our client had broken a bottle over his head in the past and was exhibiting increasingly hostile behavior towards him. Hearing this, the prosecutor on the underlying criminal case moved to revoke bail. Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting the restraining order not to issue and the bail to remain in tact.

Read More in Bail Hearings

The defendant is a professor at a prestigious local university. He was charged with violating a restraining order, G.L. c. 209A over two years ago. After some contentious litigation Attorney Neyman was able to get the man pretrial probation pursuant to G.L. c. 276 Section 87. He quickly violated the conditions set by the judge and was placed back on the trial list. The district attorney's office wanted a guilty finding and the litigation was rekindled. Today, our office succeeded in getting pretrial probation again with the original conditions. The case will be dismissed in the fall.

Read More in Pretrial Probation

The defendant is a twenty year old man against whom a restraining order issued late last week. A return date was scheduled for today. Our office was hired over the weekend. The affidavit in support of the restraining order application claimed that the defendant was abusive to the complainant and that he was indirectly involving her in his alleged criminal activities including drug dealing. Reading between the lines it was clear that the complainant's mother was behind the efforts to keep the parties apart and most likely the motivation behind the restraining order efforts. Our office appeared today for the extension hearing. After making our case and clarifying the inadequacies of the supporting affidavit and in court testimony the judge agreed and vacated the restraining order.

Read More in Drug Crimes

In November of 2015 the defendant was served with a harassment prevention order pursuant to G.L. c. 258E. He appeared without a lawyer to contest the order. His efforts were unsuccessful. Subsequently, the accused was in a parking lot at a large shopping center in Weymouth. There, it is alleged that he observed the woman who had obtained the harassment prevention order and performed acts designed to intimidate her. She immediately contacted the local police who arrived at the scene, took witness statements and eventually arrested the accused. The man was charged with violating a 258E harassment prevention order, a crime under G.L. c. 258E Section 9. Attorney Neyman was hired to represent the man. Today, the case went to trial. The defendant was found not guilty.

Read More in Criminal Harassment

The defendant and his wife have been estranged following allegations of abuse against the husband. A 209A abuse and prevention order issued against our client prior to our office being involved in the case. The wife has attempted on multiple occasions to have the order extended permanently. It is the defendant's belief that such efforts are being exerted to manipulate child custody and visitation schedules in collateral proceedings. To this end the wife has made unsupported claims that she has been assaulted by our client in the past. Today, Attorney Neyman successfully defended another attempt by the wife to extend the restraining order permanently.

Read More in Domestic Assault and Battery

The defendant and complainant are husband and wife. Following a domestic dispute that became violent and resulted in criminal charges the complainant applied for and obtained a restraining order against the defendant. He in turn immediately hired Attorney Stephen Neyman to appear in court and move to modify and vacate the order. In just a few days we were able to schedule a hearing at which time the 209A restraining order was modified and agreed to be vacated in two weeks.

Read More in Peabody Criminal Defense Attorney

The defendant is a professor who lives and works out of state. He is tenured at a major university. The prosecution alleged that in February of 2015 the man contacted his soon to be ex-wife and children through a third party notwithstanding the existence of a valid 209A restraining order. Based on the history of the relationship between the parties the prosecution wanted a guilty finding. Anything short of pretrial probation pursuant to G.L. c. 276 Section 87 would likely result in the defendant losing his job and becoming unemployable in his field. After over a year of fighting for out client today Attorney Neyman was able to get pretrial probation. The man will have no criminal record.

Read More in Pretrial Probation

Our client is a construction worker who was served with a 209A restraining order in October of last year. The order was to last for one year and prevented the man from contacting his former girlfriend. This order presented the man with severe hardships. The threat of a violation and the issuance of a criminal complaint constantly loomed. He hired Attorney Stephen Neyman to vacate the order. Today, after a hearing we were able to get the restraining order lifted.

The defendant is a professional living in Boston. About two weeks ago her former boyfriend successfully applied for a G.L. c. 209A restraining order. A hearing was set for today. The woman hired our office to fight against any extension and to vacate the existing order. The plaintiff complained that he was struck from behind by our client with a hard object that rendered him unconscious. He presented corroborating medical evidence from a local hospital. Our office accumulated substantial evidence demonstrating that the restraining order was being used to manipulate our client and that is should be vacated. After a hearing the judge agreed not to extend the order and to vacate the existing order.

Read More in Domestic Assault and Battery

On October 31, 2015 a local police department responded to a call from an elderly services worker. The worker was meeting with a woman who had allegedly been assaulted by her husband. The victim had taken a restraining order out against the man. During the meeting the defendant arrived at the victim's home in violation of the order. He began banging on the door, eventually gaining access. The police arrived and arrested him, charging him with a 209A violation. Today, our office was able to get the case continued without a finding.

Read More in Assault and Battery

The defendant is a successful businessman working in the South Shore area. On April 30, 2015 his former girlfriend applied for an emergency restraining order in the Fall River District Court. She alleged that for a four month period the defendant threatened her, abused her and harassed her family. The woman further alleged that the defendant stalked her and her family for an extensive period of time and that he was mentally unstable. Today, Attorney Neyman appeared with the man and was able to vacate the restraining order.

Read More in Restraining Orders

The plaintiff and defendant are neighbors. They have been engaged in various disputes for several years. Recently, the plaintiff made a complaint for a harassment prevention order in the Salem District Court. He alleged that the defendant started several fights with contractors working on his home. He complained that she trespassed on his property several times. He also alleged that she harassed his tenants. The plaintiff also stated that the defendant caused damage to his property and that on a daily basis she assaulted him with obscene gestures. The defendant hired Attorney Stephen Neyman to represent her at the harassment prevention order hearing. Today, after hearing our arguments the declined to issue the order.

The defendant is an attorney who was involved in a dating relationship with a woman from Hingham. The woman terminated the relationship. The man was unable to accept the breakup and continuously called her. The call frequency escalated. The woman refused to respond. The defendant then started to follow her to various locations she frequented. One of those places is a fitness gym where her children observed the accused following her. She then sought and obtained a temporary restraining order. The defendant subsequently went to her home, entering it when she was upstairs taking a shower. At hearing for extending the order our office succeeded in convincing the judge to vacate the existing order and no extend it.

The plaintiff and defendant are cousins one of whom lives in Brighton, Massachusetts. On August 18, 2014 the plaintiff applied for an ex parte restraining order. His request was granted and a hearing was scheduled for today to decide whether or not to extend the order. The defendant, who lives out of state hired Attorney Stephen Neyman to represent him. The plaintiff asked for an extension of the order. He claimed that the defendant had threatened him physically and that he believed that threats were real. In support of this belief was a recorded telephone call that the defendant made to the Boston Police. Attorney Neyman convinced the judge to vacate the order and to refuse to extend the order. The defendant never had to appear in court.

The complainant and the defendant had an intense dating relationship for a short period of time. According to the complainant the relationship ended and the defendant, a sergeant in the Army  continued to pursue him. The complainant alleged in an affidavit that on July 9, 2014 our client sent him threatening texts. She then broke into his home in Taunton, Massachusetts where his pregnant girlfriend and her children were sleeping. While in the home she threatened him and the girlfriend. She finally left the home and slashed three of the four tires on his car. Attorney Neyman represented the woman today on a harassment prevention order and restraining order hearing. After a hearing our office convinced the judge not to issue the order.

The complainant and the defendant had a dating relationship for several years. In recent months the relationship ended when the complainant, a woman began seeing another man.The defendant was unable to accept this and badgered the woman for several months. He went to her place of business unannounced and over her protestations. He used social medial to harass the woman and intimidate her new boyfriend. He drove by her parents home in hopes of making "inadvertent" contact with her. He stalked her and reminded her of former incidents of abuse and insinuated that such abuse might resume. The woman applied for an emergency restraining order that was granted. Today, Attorney Neyman was able to get the order dismissed.

Plymouth District Court: The defendant is a female fitness trainer who had been dating a married police officer for several months. The relationship became serious and the officer's family members learned what had been happening. The officer sought to terminate the relationship in order to save his marriage and possibly his job. To do this he took out Restraining Order against the woman. Our office was hired to go into court and try to vacate the Restraining Order. Today, Attorney Neyman was able to have the order vacated thereby lifting all restrictions that had been imposed on our client.

Brookline District Court: On November 9, 2012 a Brookline, Massachusetts Police Officer was dispatched to take a report for a Violation of a Restraining Order. The officer met with the victim who stated that she had a restraining order against her former boyfriend. The order was in fact in existence. The victim complained that the defendant had been contacting her for several weeks all in violation of the order. A criminal complaint issued. The defendant was arrested on a warrant and hired our office. Today, we succeeded in getting the case resolved by a continuance without a finding. Absent any criminal legal problems this case will be dismissed.

Roxbury District Court: It was alleged that our client bought a one-way ticket from Texas to Boston, went to a former boyfriend's apartment upon arrival, and was escorted out of his building by security. The ex-boyfriend alleged that our client called him 20 times per day and " stalked" him at a local bar, grocery store, and his workplace. He also claimed that she followed him along Boston streets, ducking into doorways as she walked. An existing order was vacated after Denise Dolan of our office represented our client at a hearing.

Hingham District Court: Prior to retaining our office, our client's brother- in- law had obtained a temporary restraining order which contained a provision ordering our client to stay away from her parents' home. The plaintiff brother-in-law claimed that the stay away provision was needed because he and his wife regularly cared for our client's parents. Our client retained our office to challenge that provision because she was living in her parents' home and had been doing so for approximately one year, as she had lost her job. Denise Dolan of our office successfully argued that the brother-in-law had no legal standing to request a stay away from the parents' home, and the court vacated the challenged part of the 209A order.

Natick District Court: The prosecution alleged that on June 24, 2011 Natick police officers responded to a mall security report of a male slashing tires on a car in the parking lot. The defendant's vehicle was leaving the parking lot and stopped by the police. Security cameras caught the act on tape. The defendant was stopped, identified and arrested. In his possession the police found the knife used to commit the felony act. The defendant confessed to the act, which is a felony that by law cannot be continued without a finding. While searching his car the police located seven hundred dollars counterfeit cash, also a felony in Massachusetts. Today Attorney Neyman was able to get the charge of Malicious Destruction to a Motor Vehicle dismissed. The remaining charges were continued without a finding with unsupervised probation. If the defendant remains free from criminal legal trouble for the next year all charges will be formally dismissed.

Brighton District Court: The mother of the defendant's child sought the extension of an abuse prevention order, claiming that the relationship deteriorated as a result of our client's drinking habits. She claimed that while drinking, he would become offensive and put her in fear for her physical safety. She claimed that she fled from the couple's California home with their infant son because of this and that since that time, he had contacted her with threatening messages. Today, Denise Dolan of our office was able to get the order vacated.

Roxbury District Court: The plaintiff filed a complaint for protection from harassment against our client, a fitness professional at a local gym. The plaintiff alleged that our client harassed her at the gym while she was pregnant. According to the plaintiff, the unborn child belonged to our client's husband, and the purported affair resulted in the alleged verbal abuse. After our office was retained to represent the defendant, the harassment prevention order was not granted.

Lowell District Court: Our client became subject to removal from the United States once it came to the attention of authorities that he was an alien who had admitted to acts that constituted elements of a crime involving moral turpitude. He hired our office to move to vacate the convictions, and our motion was allowed on the grounds that his attorney did not advise him of immigration consequences of admitting to sufficient facts and that he did not receive an adequate plea colloquy. The matters now stand for new trial, giving our client the opportunity to avoid adverse immigration consequences.

South Boston District Court: Police applied for three complaints against our client. In one, it was alleged that he was parked outside of his ex-girlfriend's apartment in violation of an existing restraining order. In another, it was alleged that our client violated the restraining order on a different occasion by making several phone calls and sending e-mail and Facebook messages. Additionally, it was alleged that on yet another occasion, our client called this woman 30 times in a 24 hour period and followed a pizza delivery man into her apartment building to bang on her door. Denise Dolan of our office represented our client at a clerk's hearing. Two of these applications were dismissed and one was continued to be dismissed in 7 months.

Boston Municipal Court, East Boston Division: A restraining order had previously issued against our client, a New Hampshire man. The plaintiff had alleged that she overheard our client screaming to two of their mutual colleagues that he wanted to hunt her down and shoot her with an AK-47. After the defendant retained Attorney Neyman's office to represent him at a further extension hearing, our office succeeded in getting the order vacated.

Lawrence District Court. The defendant is a Dominican man against whom a former girlfriend obtained a restraining order. The woman claimed that our client knocked on her door and when she did not answer he went around to her bedroom window. When she still did not answer he smashed in the bedroom window and broke down her door. The woman claimed that she feared for her safety and the safety of her daughter. Our office succeeded in getting the restraining order vacated today.

Roxbury District Court Docket Number: 09-0484. Our client, a local college student working on his doctorate was served with a restraining order for allegedly abusing his girlfriend. On August 10, 2009 she got a restraining order against him. The complaining witness wrote in her affidavit that after breaking up the defendant went into her bedroom, woke her up, turned on the lights and started yelling at her. As the argument continued the defendant grabbed her by the shoulders, shook her and screamed obscenities in her face. He then grabbed her by the wrists and started breaking glasses and dishes. Today we succeeded in getting the restraining order vacated.

Appeals Court Docket Number 2007-P-1530.  In January of 2007 a judge in the Dedham District Court imposed a restraining order on a college student.  The complainant stated that she had a tumultuous relationship with the defendant for two and a half years.  At times he would verbally abuse her, call her names and intimidate her in a manner she claimed lowered her self esteem.  Defense counsel thoroughly cross-examined the woman during the restraining order hearing.  His efforts disclosed that it was the complainant rather that the defendant who had engaged in harassing behavior.  This notwithstanding, the judge imposed the restraining order.  After the order had expired the defendant engaged our office to appeal the order.  Attorney Neyman successfully argued the case to the Massachusetts Appeals Court and the order was reversed.

Lawrence District Court # MH 08W0305.  The prosecution alleged that on May 16, 2007 Methuen Police were dispatched to a location for a report of continuing threats.  The victim alleged that the defendant, a juvenile, dropped a cardboard piece of paper at the end of her walkway.  Written on the cardboard were the words "I'm coming soon.  You're gonna die".  The victim claimed that this is the second note she received from the defendant and that she had been stalked by him for several months.  After investigating the matter the police summonsed the defendant for a clerk's hearing.  Attorney Neyman appeared and convinced the clerk magistrate to refrain from issuing a criminal complaint.  If the defendant remains free from all criminal involvement for six (6) months the matter will be dismissed.