Case ID: so2d_954/html/0691-01.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

Ray DIPASQUALE, Appellant, v. MAROONE FORD, LLC., Appellee.
    No. 4D06-1997.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    April 18, 2007.
    Julie H. Littky-Rubin of Lytal, Reiter, Clark, Fountain & Williams, LLP., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Richard A. Ivers of the Law Office of Richard A. Ivers, Coral Springs, for appel-lee Maroone Ford, LLC.
    Gordon Lea of the Law Office of Bohdan Neswiacheny, Fort Lauderdale, for appel-lee Mark Bond.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Tillman v. State, 471 So.2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985) (“In order to be preserved for further review by a higher court ... the specific legal argument ... to be argued on appeal or review must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.”); Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332, 338 (Fla.1982) (“in order for an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below.”).

GUNTHER, STONE and FARMER, JJ., concur.