- 1 -

Supreme Court

No. 2018-282-Appeal.

(PC 14-436)

OSJ of Providence, LLC :

v. :

Aly T. Diene. :

O R D E R

The defendant, Aly Diene, appeals from an order denying his “Motion for Postjudgment 

Relief Petition for Perjury.” In a previous decision, this Court addressed Mr. Diene’s appeal 

from the entry of final judgment in favor of the plaintiff, OSJ of Providence, LLC (OSJ); and we 

unanimously affirmed that judgment. OSJ of Providence, LLC v. Diene, 154 A.3d 460, 461-62

(R.I. 2017). This case came before the Supreme Court for oral argument pursuant to an order 

directing the parties to show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily 

decided. After examining the written and oral submissions of the parties and after a thorough 

review of the record, we are of the opinion that this appeal may be resolved without further 

briefing or argument. 

As the facts of the underlying dispute are detailed in our previous decision, we shall 

relate here only the facts that are directly relevant to the present appeal. On May 10, 2017, after 

the Superior Court had entered final judgment in favor of OSJ and after this Court had issued its 

opinion affirming that judgment, Mr. Diene filed a “Motion for Postjudgment Relief Petition for 

Perjury” in the Superior Court, alleging that OSJ, through its attorney, had made false statements 

and had introduced misleading documents at the Superior Court hearing that was conducted to 
- 2 -

determine the amount of damages owed to OSJ.

1

 OSJ objected to that motion, contending that

Mr. Diene had failed to present sufficient evidence to warrant postjudgment relief under Rule 60 

of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. On April 13, 2018, the hearing justice heard 

argument on Mr. Diene’s motion, but she reserved issuing a decision at that time so as to give the 

parties the opportunity to present further arguments.

2

 On April 17, 2018, Mr. Diene filed another 

“Motion for Postjudgment Relief Petition for Perjury,” making the same contentions as he had in 

his first motion. On April 24, 2018, after hearing arguments as to both the motion filed in May 

of 2017 and the motion filed in April of 2018, the hearing justice denied both motions. An order 

to that effect entered, and Mr. Diene appealed.

On appeal, Mr. Diene contends: (1) that the hearing justice erred by denying his motion 

for postjudgment relief based on a clerical error; (2) that the hearing justice erred by denying his 

motion for postjudgment relief based on new evidence; and (3) that he was “denied a fair trial 

and his civil right to a fair hearing.”3 In his written submission to this Court, Mr. Diene does not 

identify the clerical error or new evidence that he alleges warranted a grant of postjudgment 

relief, nor does he explain how he was denied a fair hearing. As we have often said, we “deem 

 

1 The referenced Superior Court hearing was held in August of 2015 before the entry of 

final judgment in favor of OSJ. OSJ of Providence, LLC v. Diene, 154 A.3d 460, 463 (R.I. 

2017).

2 On April 20, 2018, an order entered denying Mr. Diene’s first “Motion for Postjudgment 

Relief Petition for Perjury.” At the hearing on April 24, 2018, the hearing justice noted that she 

had signed that order in error as she remembered that she had indicated to the parties that she 

would reserve her decision until a later date. 

3 The day before oral argument, Mr. Diene submitted a document to this Court entitled 

“Motion to Consider Perjury Based on Newly Discovered Evidence.” Even prescinding from the 

fact that this most recent filing is not authorized by the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, the arguments raised therein were not presented to the Superior Court and, therefore,

are not properly before us on appeal. See Adams v. Santander Bank, N.A., 183 A.3d 544, 548 

(R.I. 2018).
- 3 -

an issue waived ‘when a party [s]imply stat[es] an issue for appellate review, without a 

meaningful discussion thereof * * *.’” A. Salvati Masonry Inc. v. Andreozzi, 151 A.3d 745, 750 

(R.I. 2017) (quoting In re Jake G., 126 A.3d 450, 458 (R.I. 2015)). Such is the case “[e]ven 

when a party has properly preserved its alleged error of law in the lower court * * *.” McGarry 

v. Pielech, 108 A.3d 998, 1005 (R.I. 2015); see Terzian v. Lombardi, 180 A.3d 555, 557 (R.I. 

2018). Mr. Diene’s submission to this Court entitled “Notice of Appeal” contains no cognizable 

legal argument. Therefore, we hold that each of Mr. Diene’s arguments on appeal are waived.

We conclude by observing that Mr. Diene has clearly had his day in court. In our 

considered judgment, “[i]t is time for this litigation to end.” Arena v. City of Providence, 919 

A.2d 379, 396 (R.I. 2007); see Gunn v. Union Railroad Co., 27 R.I. 320, 337, 62 A. 118, 125 

(1905).

For the reasons set forth in this order, we affirm the order of the Superior Court. The 

record may be returned to that tribunal. 

Entered as an Order of this Court, this day of December, 2019.

By Order,

 

Clerk

3

rd

/s/
SU‐CMS‐02B (revised November 2016)

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS 

SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE 

ORDER COVER SHEET 

Title of Case OSJ of Providence, LLC v. Aly T. Diene. 

Case Number No. 2018-282-Appeal. 

(PC 14-436)

Date Order Filed December 3, 2019 

Justices Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and 

Indeglia, JJ. 

Source of Appeal Providence County Superior Court 

Judicial Officer From Lower Court Associate Justice Maureen B. Keough 

Attorney(s) on Appeal 

For Plaintiff: 

Lisa A. Adelman, Esq.

For Defendant: 

Aly T. Diene, Pro Se