Case ID: so2d_621/html/1095-01.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

Michael EISNER, Appellant/cross-appellee, v. A.M. HOCHSTADT, Max Hochstadt, and Rose Hochstadt, Appellees/cross-appellants.
    No. 92-1786.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Aug. 10, 1993.
    Douthit, Jung & Gross and Marc Anthony Douthit, Miami, for appellant/cross-ap-pellee.
    J. Steven Warner, Boca Raton, for appel-lees/cross-appellants.
    Before NESBITT, COPE and GODERICH, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Michael Eisner, defendant below, appeals a final judgment entered against him after a bench trial. Appellees A.M. Hochstadt, Max Hochstadt, and Rose Hochstadt, plaintiffs below, cross-appeal.

As to Eisner’s appeal, we conclude that no reversible error has been shown on the record now before us in the trial court’s denial of the motions to dismiss for lack of prosecution. Likewise no error is shown in the first point on cross-appeal, relating to the computation of interest. As to the second point on cross-appeal, in the absence of a record we are unable to ascertain the basis of the trial court’s ruling, which in the absence of a contrary showing is presumed to be correct. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979).

Affirmed.