Louis Paolino v. Joseph Ferreira

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed an amended Superior Court judgment for the defendants in an environmental-contamination dispute. The Court declined to dismiss the plaintiffs’ appeal based on delayed transmission of the record, held that the plaintiffs waived their challenge to the adequacy of a curative instruction concerning defense counsel’s opening statement, and upheld the trial justice’s limitation of expert testimony concerning an opposing expert’s report.

Holdings

1. The appeal should not be dismissed because the plaintiffs timely filed their notice of appeal and ordered the necessary transcripts, the record was complete, and the delay in transmission was attributable to circumstances involving transmission by the trial-court clerk rather than an attempt by plaintiffs to abandon the appeal.
2. The plaintiffs waived appellate review of the adequacy of the curative instruction by failing to object to its sufficiency or move to pass the case after the instruction was given.
3. The trial justice did not abuse her discretion in allowing Beck to testify narrowly about whether she agreed with specified portions of the Roseen report, and the ruling did not result in a meaningful or prejudicial Rule 33(c) violation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the plaintiffs' appeal should be dismissed under Article I, Rule 11(a) of the Rhode Island Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure because the record was not transmitted for nearly three years.
2. Whether the trial justice erred by failing to provide an adequate curative instruction concerning alleged misstatements in defense counsel's opening statement.
3. Whether the trial justice abused her discretion or permitted a prejudicial violation of Rule 33(c) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure by allowing Karen Beck to give limited testimony concerning the Roseen report.

Disposition

affirmed