Case ID: so2d_636/html/0882-01.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

David ROMAN, et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF MIAMI, et al., Appellees.
    No. 93-1600.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    May 17, 1994.
    Panter & Panter and Mitchell J. Panter, Miami, for appellants.
    A. Quinn Jones, III, City Atty., and David Z. Stone and Kathryn S. Pecko, Asst. City Attys., for appellee City of Miami.
    Adams & Adams and Mai-Ling E. Castillo, Miami, for appellee Rolando Martinez.
    Before BASKIN, JORGENSON and GREEN, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

David Roman appeals from an order of final summary judgment entered in favor of Rolando Martinez. We affirm. See May v. Crounse, 598 So.2d 303 (Fla. 3d DCA) (landowner under no duty to keep abutting sidewalk free of accumulated debris), rev. denied, 606 So.2d 1165 (Fla.1992); Cantens v. Jeff-Son, Inc., 381 So.2d 307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (hotel has no duty to maintain abutting public sidewalk); see also Mahoney v. Burger King Corp., 600 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (summary judgment for property owner appropriate where plaintiff presented no evidence that owner had actual or constructive knowledge of condition that allegedly caused fall).

As to the claims against the City of Miami, we do not have jurisdiction and dismiss the appeal. See Metro-Dade Police Dept. v. Hidalgo, 601 So.2d 1259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (where appellant fails to file timely notice of appeal from order to be reviewed, this court is without subject matter jurisdiction).

Affirmed as to appellee Martinez; appeal dismissed as to the City of Miami.