R.I. Supreme Court sides with singer Vanessa Carlton in noise, harassment lawsuit against neighbor 9%

By Christopher Gavin6%

7/14/2026, 7:25:39 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Appeal to Authority, and Self-Serving Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 14.7% saturation with 80 hits. Analysis detected 566 faulty-reasoning hits from 543 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 26.1% and a BS Rank of 9% (19,287 of 21,175 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 91.10% of the article peer group.

PROVIDENCE  The Rhode Island Supreme Court on Tuesday affirmed a 2024 decision granting a preliminary injunction requested by Grammy-nominated singer Vanessa Carlton, who had alleged the owners of an industrial property abutting her Warwick home harassed her family by filming their house and subjecting them to unlawfully loud noise. 
The court affirmed the previous ruling by Providence Superior Court Associate Justice Daniel Procaccini that prohibited the adjacent property owners, Artak Avagyan and Lee Beausoleil, and their tenant, from any operations or activity that violate the city’s 60-decibel noise limit, or that “harasses and/or reasonably interferes” with the family’s “use and enjoyment of their own property.” 
They were also barred from photographing or harassing Carlton’s family. 
Avagyan and Beausoleil appealed to the Supreme Court, contending Procaccini erred in granting the injunction, including his finding that Carlton and her family could suffer irreparable harm without the court order. 
But the court rejected those arguments. 
“Given the hearing justice’s cogent and thorough consideration of each aspect of the preliminary injunction analysis, we see no basis for finding an abuse of discretion in any of his several discretionary rulings,” Justice William P. 
Robinson III wrote in the 31-page decision. 
Nicholas J. 
Hemond, an attorney representing Carlton, wrote in an email on Tuesday, “We are very happy with the Court’s decision and grateful for their time and attention. 
“Now, it is time to hold these Defendants accountable to this injunctive order that they have ignored since it was entered,” Hemond wrote. 
“They have been told at every level to cease and desist, including now in the Supreme Court. 
Hopefully, they will start to follow the court’s orders. 
If not, we will hold them accountable.” 
An attorney for Avagyan and Beausoleil did not immediately return requests for comment. 
Avagyan has previously said the allegations are “all nonsense and lies.” 
Carlton, the singer-pianist behind the 2002 hit “A Thousand Miles,” and her husband, John McCauley, singer-songwriter for Providence-based band Deer Tick, filed the lawsuit in October 2024. 
The couple, who bought their historic, 1795 house in 2021, alleged the noise and harassment was retaliation after they publicly voiced opposition to a proposal to develop part of the 16-acre industrial site on Post Road at the edge of Pawtuxet Village. 
The couple was previously able to work at their home on the residentially-zoned, 1-acre lot without issue, they said in court. 
But that changed in 2024 when a wood framing contractor  and later, a crane company  moved to the industrial site, with sounds coming from generators, cranes, and vehicles throughout the week, according to the lawsuit. 
The noise made it difficult for Carlton and McCauley to make music at home, even when they were in the $110,000 soundproofed recording studio they built there before their complaints began, they said. 
They also alleged Avagyan or his landscapers had been seen filming their home several times. 
“My whole life is on my property and it is extremely challenging to create music there now,” Carlton said in court in 2024. 
“We’re fighting to stay on our property.” 
Material from previous Globe stories was used in this report. 
This story has been updated with comment from Nicholas Hemond. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.3%Christopher Gavin: 0.6%Boston Globe: 3.0%Confirmation Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.6%Boston Globe: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Christopher Gavin: 2.5%Boston Globe: 3.3%Availability Heuristic6.1%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.6%Boston Globe: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.4%Boston Globe: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 1.2%Boston Globe: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Christopher Gavin: 0.9%Boston Globe: 5.1%Framing Effect2.4%This article: 6.1%Christopher Gavin: 2.7%Boston Globe: 0.5%Loss Aversion6.1%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.4%Christopher Gavin: 3.8%Boston Globe: 2.1%Optimism Bias6.4%This article: 2.6%Christopher Gavin: 0.7%Boston Globe: 1.2%Pessimism Bias2.6%This article: 14.7%Christopher Gavin: 4.8%Boston Globe: 7.7%Negativity Bias14.7%This article: 6.8%Christopher Gavin: 0.7%Boston Globe: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias6.8%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 3.6%Boston Globe: 4.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.8%Christopher Gavin: 1.3%Boston Globe: 1.3%Recency Bias1.8%This article: 1.3%Christopher Gavin: 1.0%Boston Globe: 0.3%Primacy Effect1.3%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.2%Boston Globe: 0.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.8%Christopher Gavin: 6.3%Boston Globe: 3.9%Appeal to Authority9.8%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 1.0%Boston Globe: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.0%Boston Globe: 2.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.5%Boston Globe: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.5%Christopher Gavin: 4.5%Boston Globe: 5.5%Appeal to Emotion5.5%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 14.5%Christopher Gavin: 3.0%Boston Globe: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.5%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.2%Christopher Gavin: 0.4%Boston Globe: 0.6%Burden of Proof4.2%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.1%Christopher Gavin: 0.8%Boston Globe: 2.0%Anecdotal3.1%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 1.0%Boston Globe: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.6%Christopher Gavin: 0.7%Boston Globe: 1.3%Unattributed Quote6.6%This article: 4.8%Christopher Gavin: 0.8%Boston Globe: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection4.8%This article: 2.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.3%Boston Globe: 2.0%Biased Writer Voice2.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Gavin: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

543 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers31%attributed speech377writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 56 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWilliam P. Robinson III • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWilliam P. Robinson III • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageNicholas J. Hemond • 26 words • 100.0% coverageNicholas J. Hemond • 23 words • 0.0% coverageNicholas J. Hemond • 17 words • 0.0% coverageNicholas J. Hemond • 9 words • 0.0% coverageNicholas J. Hemond • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageArtak Avagyan • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageVanessa Carlton • 23 words • 0.0% coverageVanessa Carlton • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Artak Avagyan

100%flagged-word coverage
11 attributed words6.6% of attributed speech40% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Artak Avagyan: 100.0%100.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.