- 1

- Supreme Court
No. 201 9

- 183

- Appeal. ( PD 18

- 8874 )

Real Property Management, Agent for Widgeon Partners, LLC :

v. : Rasharn Young. :

O R D E R The defendant, Rasharn Young, appeals from a February 7, 2019 judgment of the Providence County Superior Court in favor of the plaintiff, Real Property Management (RPM) as agent for Widgeon Partners, LLC, in this trespass and ejectment action

. This case came before the Supreme Court for oral argument pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After a close review of the record and careful consideration of the parties’ arguments (both written and oral),
we are satisfied that caus e has not been shown and that this appeal may be decided
at this time. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the judgment of the Superior
Court. RPM acts as the property manager for Widgeon Partners, LLC, which owns
real property located at 171 Gard en Street in Pawtucket, R hode I sland

. RPM entered- 2

-

into a rental agreement with Mr. Young for Unit 3 at the 171 Garden Street property

. There is a history of contentious relations between RPM and Mr. Young over
second

- hand smoke that Mr. Young contends was coming into his apartment even though smoking is not allowed in the building

. In the particular phase of this ongoing conflict with which we are concerned in this appeal , Mr. Young opted not

to pay his rent for November of 201 8 (Mr. Young would subsequently also fail to pay his rent for December of 2018 ) . O n November 2 7, 2018, RPM filed a complaint
in the District Court for eviction due to non
- payment of rent. Mr. Young answered , contending that his apartment was not maintained in a fit and habitable condition , and he counterclaimed for “pain and suffering caused by the landlord not doing anything ab o ut the [ cigarette ] smoke entering [his] apartment

. ” A trial ensued in the
Dis trict Court , and RPM prevailed

. On December 7, 2018, Mr. Young appealed to the Superior Court , where a de

novo trial was held on January 4, 2019

. Mr. Young, a representative from RPM , and a neighbor of Mr. Young testified at that trial

. At the close of the trial , the trial justice issued a bench decision in RPM’s favor

. O n February 7, 2019, t he trial justice entered judgment in favor of RPM for possession of the premises and back rent; he
also d ismissed Mr. Young’s counterclaim . Mr. Young has appealed that judgment
to this Court

.- 3

-

On appeal before this Court , Mr. Young filed a one and a half page prebriefing statement pursuant to Art icle I, Rule 12A of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate
Procedure. In that statement, he contends that he did not receive a fair trial and that evidence which had been introduced in a previous legal controversy between these parties relative to the same general subject , in which Mr. Young prevailed , was not

a dmitted in this case

. Mr. Young express es surprise that he could prevail in a previous legal controversy, which also arose with respect to alleged second

- hand smoke in his apartment and not prevail in this case

. He further avers that he has newly obtained video evidence which shows that the neighbor who testified at his trial was not being truthful in her testimony

. However, nowhere in the course of relating those contention s does Mr. Young provide any developed argument or explanation of his allegations. He fails to provide even a single citation to the record in the case or a single citation to any legal

source. As such, Mr. Young has clearly waived his a rguments before this Court. See Broccoli v. Manning , 208 A.3d 1146, 1149 (R.I. 2019) (“ This Court generally
deems an issue waived when a party simply states an issue for appellate review, without a meaningful discussion thereof.” ) (internal quotation marks omitted);
Wilkinson v. State Crime Lab oratory Comm ission , 788 A.2d 1129, 113 1 n.1 (R.I. 2002) (“ Simply stating an issue fo r appellate review, without a meaningful discussion thereof or legal briefing of the issues, does not assist the Court in focusing- 4

-

on the legal questions raised, and therefore constitutes a waiver of that issue. ”); see also In re McKenna , 201 A.3d 952, 952 (R.I. 2019) (mem.)

. What is more, in light of the purportedly newly obtained video evidence, Mr. Young asks this Court to “rehear” his case and award him damages in the amount of $1,875 as well as reimbursement for the cost of court transcripts

. That is simply not
relief which this Court can provide. It is not the function of this Court to “rehear” a case or consider new evidence not presented in the Superior Court. See State v.
Rosati , 594 A.2d 885, 886 (R.I. 1991) (per curiam) (“It is well set tled that this [C]ourt has been an appellate tribunal since the founding of the Superior Court in 1905. It is not our function to take testimony and act as a court of nisi prius.”). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court

. T he record may
be returned to that tribunal

.

Entered as a n Order of this Court this day of March , 20 21

. By Order,

______________________________ Clerk 26th

/s/SU

- CMS

- 02B (revised June 2020) STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT

– CLERK’S OFFICE L icht Judicial Complex 250 Benefit Street Providence, RI 02903
ORDER COVER SHEET

Title of Case Real Property Management, Agent for Widgeon Partners, LLC v. Rasharn Young.
Case Number No. 2019

- 18 3

- Appeal. (PD 18

- 8874)
Date Order Filed March 26, 2021

Justices Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ. Source of Appeal Providence County Superior Court

Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Luis M. Matos

At torney(s) on Appeal For Plaintiff: Arthur S. Russo, Jr. For Defendant: Rasharn Young, Pro Se