In a pro se appeal, appellant Amir Shakhnovich told the court the housing court erred on the eve of trial by ruling that two statutory counterclaims under Chapter 186 (§§14 and 15/15B) were not supported by the pleadings or were subsumed into quiet-enjoyment claims, by quashing subpoenas for his minor daughter’s medical and school records, and by narrowing jury instructions so the jury could not consider the separate statutory remedies he sought.

Shakhnovich said the April 30 order effectively dismissed counts he had pleaded months earlier and prevented him from presenting medical and educational exhibits that would have supported claims for unlawful entry, removal of goods and forced eviction. He argued the procedural timing and an order issued on the morning of trial prejudiced his ability to proceed and seek statutory remedies.

Appellee counsel Annie Haligian told the panel that motions to quash and a motion for judgment on the pleadings were heard in pretrial proceedings and that the judge limited claims because the pleadings lacked factual allegations supporting particular statutory subsections; she said the trial judge had broad discretion, that relevant trial evidence was admitted under section 14 (quiet enjoyment) and that the record supports judgment for possession and unpaid rent.

The court asked whether the appellant had standing to bring claims on behalf of a minor and pressed both sides on what evidence actually reached the jury; after argument the case was submitted.