Case ID: so2d_505/html/0024-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Susan LEVY and Howard Levy, her husband, Appellants, v. HAWK’S CAY, INC., Hawk’s Cay Investors Ltd.; Brandy Group, Inc., Brandy Marine of the Keys; Sears, Roebuck & Co.; Murray Ohio Manufacturing Co.; and Jeffrey Sylvester, Appellees.
    No. 86-3096.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    April 7, 1987.
    Shutts & Bowen and Richard M. Leslie, Miami, and Anthony J. Oliva, Coral Gables, for appellants.
    Arnstein, Gluck, Lehr & Milligan, and Carol McLean Brewer, West Palm Beach, James C. Blecke and Susan S. Lerner, Miami, Conroy, Simberg, Wilensky & Lewis, Hollywood and Sharon A. Shade, Miami, for appellees.
    Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and BASKIN, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

The non-final order transferring the venue of the instant negligence/products liability action below from Dade County to Monroe County, Florida, under Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1985), is affirmed because, simply stated, there was a reasonable basis in the record for such a decision and, accordingly, no gross abuse of discretion has been shown. This is so due to the fact that: (a) the action sued upon arose in Monroe County, (b) thirty-one of the sixty non-party witnesses in this cause reside in Monroe County, and (c) very few witnesses in the cause are located in Dade County. Accordingly, it can reasonably be said that (1) substantial inconvenience to the parties has been shown below for the case to be tried in Dade County, and (2) Monroe County is a far more convenient county in which to try this cause than is Dade County. We have not overlooked the contrary arguments raised by the plaintiffs/appellants, but we conclude that none can carry the day in demonstrating a gross abuse of discretion. See Sun Bank of Ocala v. International Harvester Co., 408 So.2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Della-Donna v. Gore Newspaper Co., 390 So.2d 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), pet. for review denied, 399 So.2d 1141 (Fla.1981); Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. v. Moore, 355 So.2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Peterson, Howell & Heather v. O’Neill, 314 So.2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

Affirmed.