Eileen Fuoco v. Joseph Polisena

Syllabus

The plaintiff, Eileen Fuoco, sought review of a Superior Court judgment in favor of the defendant, Joseph Polisena, following the grant of his motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure and, in the alternative, his motions for new trial and remittitur based on the trial justice's conclusion that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that the defendant made defamatory statements. The plaintiff asserted that the trial justice erred in finding that she failed to prove that three statements made by the defendant at a Johnston Town Council meeting were defamatory. The Supreme Court concluded that the Superior Court did not err in granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of the defendant. First, the Supreme Court concluded that plaintiff failed to prove that defendant's statement that she sought Temporary Disability Insurance benefits from the town and attempted to \rip the system off\ was false. The Supreme Court noted that plaintiff failed to submit any affirmative evidence showing that she did not apply for TDI benefits from the town, and that she failed to produce the application for TDI benefits. Second, the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence presented at trial supported the trial justice's conclusion that defendant conflated TDI with unemployment insurance and, accordingly, plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that defendant's statements concerning plaintiff's application for unemployment insurance were false and made with actual malice. Finally, the Supreme Court concluded that defendant's statement that plaintiff was \missing in action\ was not an actionable defamatory statement because plaintiff failed to introduce her attendance record to substantiate how many town council meetings she missed and, in fact, admitted to missing a meeting that year. Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded that plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that defendant's remarks