April 30, 2025
9:30 am |
SU-2022-0196-CA
SU-2022-0197-CA
SU-2022-0198-CA
SU-2022-0199-CA
SU-2022-0208-CA
SU-2022-0209-CA
SU-2022-0210-CA
SU-2022-0211-CA |
State of Rhode Island v. Robert L. Raso |
Counsel for Plaintiff(s):
Christopher R. Bush
Lindsay Marie Grizzard
Counsel for Defendant(s):
Carl J. Ricci |
The defendant appeals from a Superior Court decision denying his motion to terminate his imprisonment. The defendant was adjudicated a violator of several probationary terms based on allegations that he sexually assaulted his 14-year-old stepdaughter. Thereafter the state dismissed the sexual assault complaint against Mr. Raso. The defendant claims that his prison term should be terminated under G.L. 1956 § 12-19-18(b)(5) in light of the dismissal of the sexual assault charge against him. |
April 30, 2025
10:20 am
|
SU-2024-0242-A
|
Sharon Cunningham v. Kieran Cunningham |
Counsel for Plaintiff(s):
William J. Lynch
Counsel for Defendant(s):
Sean M. McAteer |
This case is before the Court on appeal by the defendant from an order awarding the plaintiff $6,125 in attorney’s fees, in this post-divorce proceeding. Before this Court, defendant asserts that the trial judge abused her discretion in imposing this sanction for a motion that was never argued. In the alternative, he asserts that the award was excessive. |
April 30, 2025
10:40 am |
SU-2024-0048-CA |
State of Rhode Island v. Andrew Mclean |
Counsel for Plaintiff(s):
Christopher R. Bush
Brendan Patrick Sullivan
Counsel for Defendant(s):
Andrew McLean,
Pro Se |
This case is before the Court on appeal by the defendant from a judgment denying his motion to reduce sentence, made pursuant to Rule 35 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. Before this Court, defendant asserts that the trial judge erred: (1) in failing to recuse himself from hearing the Rule 35 motion, and (2) in denying the motion. |
April 30, 2025
11:00 am |
SU-2023-0221-MP |
Verizon New England Inc. v. State of Rhode Island, Department of Revenue, Division of Taxation |
Counsel for Plaintiff(s):
Thomas P. Quinn
Kristen Reilly Alberione
Counsel for Defendant(s):
Robert K. Taylor
Marc DeSisto
Carrie E. Mosca |
The plaintiff seeks review of a District Court judgment in favor of defendant. The issue before this Court concerns the interpretation of the term “accumulated depreciation” in G.L. 1956 § 44-13-13, which governs taxation of tangible personal property of certain corporations. |
May 06, 2025
9:30 am |
SU-2024-0208-A |
Dino Guilmette v. PHH Mortgage Services FKA Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC et al. |
Counsel for Plaintiff(s):
Todd Dion
Counsel for Defendant(s):
Joseph A. Farside
Krystle Guillory Tadesse |
This is a breach of contract case arising from a dispute over interpretation of the shared appreciation section of a “Loan Modification Agreement (shared appreciation)” for purposes of determining a payoff. The case was heard on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which was granted. Plaintiff argues that the language in dispute is ambiguous, and the defendants miscalculated and inflated the amount of a final payoff. |
May 06, 2025
9:50 am |
SU-2024-0201-A |
Jeanette Runey et al. v. Wayne S. Faring, Individually and Trustee of The Wayne S. Faring Trust Dated March 12, 2007 |
Counsel for Plaintiff(s):
Jeanette Runey,
Pro Se
Jeffrey Runey,
Pro Se
Counsel for Defendant(s):
David M. D'Agostino |
Plaintiff Jeanette Runey appeals pro se from an order denying her request for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiff argues that the hearing justice improperly disregarded a previous judgment in her favor. She also asserts that the hearing justice was biased against her. |
May 06, 2025
10:10 am |
SU-2022-0327-MP |
Watch Hill Fire District v. Westerly Zoning Board of Review et al. |
Counsel for Plaintiff(s):
Gerald John Petros
Tyler Robert Martin
Counsel for Defendant(s):
Scott D. Levesque
Kelly M. Fracassa
Lauren E. Jones |
This case involves the legal standard for granting a dimensional variance. The petitioner contends that the Westerly Zoning Board of Review and the Superior Court did not employ the correct standard in granting the application for a dimensional variance submitted by respondent Zoey Watch Hill, LLC. The petitioner contends that the respondent was required to prove that there was no other reasonable alternative to enjoy a legally beneficial use of its property unless it was granted a dimensional variance. |
May 06, 2025
11:00 am |
SU-2023-0104-MP
SU-2023-0117-MP |
RH Mcleod Family LLC et al. v. Westerly Zoning Board of Review et al.
4 Spray Rock, LLC v. Westerly Zoning Board of Review et al. |
Counsel for Plaintiff(s):
Gerald John Petros
Tyler Robert Martin
Stephen J. MacGillivray
Counsel for Defendant(s):
Kelly M. Fracassa
Scott D. Levesque |
In these consolidated cases, the petitioners contend that the Superior Court and the zoning board relied upon the wrong legal standard in granting a dimensional variance. They also argue that the zoning ordinance does not permit building a new nonconforming structure after the previous nonconforming structure has been voluntarily demolished. They further argue that the applicant for a dimensional variance did not demonstrate that its proposal was for the least relief necessary and did not demonstrate the necessary hardship. |
May 07, 2025
9:30 am |
SU-2024-0224-A |
Eddy Mendez v. Jennifer Arancibia |
Counsel for Plaintiff(s):
Miguel R. Hernandez
Counsel for Defendant(s):
Christopher J. Biafore
Thomas L. Mirza
Susan M. Pires |
The plaintiff appeals from a decision pending entry of final judgment of divorce. The plaintiff contends that the Family Court erred in allowing the defendant to relocate to Bolivia with the parties’ minor child. He also contends that the Family Court erred in denying him a continuance to seek new legal counsel. The plaintiff further argues that the Family Court erred in declining to admit certain evidence. |
May 07, 2025
9:50 am |
SU-2024-0105-CA |
State of Rhode Island v. Olayinka Alege |
Counsel for Plaintiff(s):
Devon Flanagan Hogan
Counsel for Defendant(s):
Olayinka Alege,
Pro Se |
The defendant was convicted of one count of simple assault/battery. He received a one-year suspended sentence with probation. The defendant argues that he should have been granted a Franks hearing. He also contends that the trial justice should have recused himself and erred in sentencing. The defendant additionally argues that the trial justice erred in admitting certain evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b) of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence. |
May 07, 2025
10:10 am |
SU-2023-0075-CA |
State of Rhode Island v. Matthew Peckham |
Counsel for Plaintiff(s):
Christopher R. Bush
Clare Margaret Noone
Sean Paul Malloy
Counsel for Defendant(s):
John M. Cicilline
Jodi M. Gladstone |
Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction on three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, one count of conspiracy to commit assault with a dangerous weapon, one count of drive-by shooting, and one count of conspiracy to commit a drive-by shooting. He contends that the judge erred in refusing to permit the admission of a witness’s juvenile record and in prohibiting cross-examination of this witness on her juvenile record, as well as in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal and new trial. |
May 07, 2025
11:00 am |
SU-2024-0078-CA |
State of Rhode Island v. Luis Roman |
Counsel for Plaintiff(s):
Christopher R. Bush
Brendan Patrick Sullivan
Counsel for Defendant(s):
Luis Roman,
Pro Se |
The pro se appellant was indicted by a grand jury for assaulting a Providence police officer with intent to murder him and several related charges. He pled guilty to all but two charges and admitted to being a habitual offender and probation violator. The appellant appeals the Superior Court justice’s denial of his motion to reduce sentence. |
May 08, 2025
9:30 am |
SU-2024-0215-A
SU-2024-0216-A |
New Phase Realty, LLC, Assignor and Prior Owner, Daniel B. Struebing and Amanda L. Lyons, Assignees and Present Owners v. Jeremy Fournier et al. |
Counsel for Plaintiff(s):
Edward J. Mulligan
Counsel for Defendant(s):
Thomas J. Cronin
Jennifer Marie Fournier |
The plaintiffs appeal from the entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, in this trespass and adverse possession case. The plaintiffs argue that the seizure by the United States government of their lot halted the time period for the defendants’ adverse possession claim over a portion of the plaintiffs’ lot. The plaintiffs contend that the hearing judge overlooked this fact. They further contend that the judge impermissibly acted as a factfinder at the summary judgment stage and overlooked the federal district court’s determination on the forfeiture of their lot. |
May 08, 2025
9:50 am |
SU-2024-0314-A |
E.H. Turf Supply Co., Inc. D/B/A Allen's Seed v. Roger Tavares |
Counsel for Plaintiff(s):
Steven H. Surdut
Counsel for Defendant(s):
Roger Tavares,
Pro Se |
The defendant appeals pro se from a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff in this dispute over the nonpayment of a tractor repair bill. The defendant contends that he did not receive a fair trial because the Superior Court allowed the plaintiff to argue first and excluded certain evidence presented by the defendant. He also argues that the judge did not consider his pro se status during the proceeding. |
May 08, 2025
10:10 am |
SU-2024-0017-A |
Robert Stratoberdha et al. v. Clements Properties LLC et al. |
Counsel for Plaintiff(s):
J. Russell Jackson
Richard A. Boren
Nicholas Thomas Hunt
John Oreste Mancini
Counsel for Defendant(s):
Cort B. Chappell
Michael DeSisto
Kenneth R. Tremblay
Kathleen M. Daniels
Thomas M. Dickinson |
This case is before the Court on appeal by the plaintiff from an order approving a settlement agreement in a Superior Court civil suit and dismissing the case. This case involves the intersection of the underlying litigation in the Superior Court case and the divorce proceedings between plaintiff and his former spouse and co-plaintiff. A commissioner was appointed to sell the marital domicile as part of the Family Court divorce proceedings. The Superior Court proceeding stemmed from the couple’s claims that defendant Clements Properties, LLC was continuously trespassing on the property on which the marital domicile was located by way of stormwater runoff from Clements’s adjacent property and creating a nuisance. Plaintiff argues that the Superior Court judge erred in accepting a settlement agreement between the parties, because plaintiff did not consent to the agreement, which was signed by a commissioner appointed by the Family Court on his behalf. He asserts that the commissioner lacked the authority to enter the settlement for him.
|