MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
F.G. appeals from the one-year extension of a G. L. c. 258E order protecting M.V. F.G. claims that she was denied due process of law and there was insufficient evidence of three acts of harassment to justify extension of the order. We affirm.
Background. In 2019, M.V. moved into the apartment above F.G.’s in a senior housing complex. On May 26, 2020, F.G. called 911 and reported that she was assaulted earlier in the day when M.V. slapped F.G.’s cell phone out of F.G.’s hand. A responding officer spoke to F.G. and then to M.V., who said that F.G. had been “constantly recording her throughout the common areas” of their building since M.V. moved in because F.G. was “paranoid” that M.V. was stalking her. “On the day in question, [M.V.] was exiting the elevator with her friends when she was caught off guard by [F.G.] again filming her with her cell phone. [M.V.] stated that she had to push [F.G.]’s hand away because it was so close to her face. When doing this, [the] phone dropped on the ground.” M.V.’s account of the incident was corroborated by witnesses and video footage which the officer watched with property manager Rhonda Glyman, who “expressed concern regarding [F.G.]’s ․ history of false allegations against other residents and staff members” that the officer documented in his report.
For the next year, F.G. continued to film M.V. and accuse M.V. of stalking and harassment, “especially around other residents/aid[e]s in the apartment complex.” Eight or nine times F.G. called the police and reported that M.V. was stalking, harassing, and threatening to hit F.G. At about 9:30 p.m. on July 19, 2021, M.V. overheard F.G. in the hallway outside the shared laundry room making such accusations. That same night, M.V. applied for a harassment prevention order, stating in her affidavit that F.G.’s behavior caused M.V. to “get nervous around” F.G. and “tremble every time she shouts at me while other people [are] around us.” M.V. asserted that she tries “to stay away from [F.G.] as best I can,” but “ever since [F.G.] learned I am P[uerto] R[ican] shes targeted me more so than before.” An ex parte order issued with an expiration date of August 2, 2021. At a hearing on that date, when the judge asked whether M.V. still felt the way she did when she signed the affidavit, M.V. testified, “Very much so, yes.”
At the hearing, the judge referred to a complaint filed by F.G. seeking a harassment prevention order against M.V. F.G. testified to several incidents of M.V. following F.G., including twice in the same day that M.V. “grabbed at a camera,” presumably referring to May 26, 2020. F.G. said that M.V. gets in her way and “establish[es] eye contact, whatever, in order to intimidate me.” When the judge said, “It seems that the property manager, Ms. Rhonda Glyman, is very concerned about your history of false allegations against other residents and staff members,” F.G. first stated that Glyman had never met her, then said she had had two conversations with Glyman about M.V. F.G. then asserted that Glyman was biased and “has no information” because she works in another building, and that the property manager for the building in which she and M.V. lived was sexually harassing F.G. Based on “what Ive just heard from the two of you and the documents that Ive just read,” the judge extended the order against F.G. and declined to issue an order against M.V.
Discussion. F.G.’s claim that she was denied due process of law because “the judge [n]ever asked me for my side of this one specific incident,” referring to May 26, 2020, so “I could never explain that [M.V.] had already followed me twice in the same day and that I was acting in self defense,” is belied by the record. At the hearing, the judge asked F.G., “What would you like to say?” and F.G. replied that M.V. had “grabbed at a camera” after twice following F.G. earlier in the day.
2
F.G. argues that the judge “let me speak but listened to nothing I said,” as shown by his ruling that was not in her favor. However, the judge was not required to believe F.G.’s testimony. See K.A. v. T.R., 86 Mass. App. Ct. 554, 565 (2014).
We need not dwell on F.G.’s contention that her word was as good as M.V.’s, as credibility was a matter for the judge who “heard testimony from the parties and was in the best position to assess their demeanor.” S.V. v. R.V., 94 Mass. App. Ct. 811, 813 (2019). On appeal, we accord the utmost deference to credibility determinations by the judge who saw the witnesses. See Constance C. v. Raymond R., 101 Mass. App. Ct. 390, 394 (2022).
Finally, F.G.’s claim that the judge heard insufficient evidence of three acts of harassment to justify issuance of the order ignores the multiple incidents recounted in M.V.’s affidavit. In the affidavit, M.V. averred that she felt fear and intimidation when, “[eight]/[nine] times or more” over one and one-half years, F.G. filmed M.V. in her personal space; screamed at M.V. in front of others; and called the police to report M.V. stalking, harassing, and trying to hit F.G. when M.V. was not even in the same room as F.G. A preponderance of the evidence supported the judges conclusion that F.G. directed at M.V. at least three acts characterized by cruelty, hostility, or revenge, with the specific intent to cause the fear and intimidation M.V. felt. See Gassman v. Reason, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 7-9 (2016), and cases cited. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt was not required. F.K. v. S.C., 481 Mass. 325, 332 n.11 (2019).
August 2, 2021, extension order affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
2
. That was essentially consistent with the version of events that F.G. had told to police, as documented in a police report in the record before us, though F.G. told the judge that the police report was “very, very slanted.”