Case ID: so2d_660/html/0742-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. LEVY, Judge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Andre F. MATHIAS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Leonne Mathias, Appellant, v. UNIROYAL, INC., a foreign corporation, Appellee.
    No. 94-2596.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Aug. 2, 1995.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 11, 1995.
    
      Grover, Weinstein, Stauber & Friedman and Marvin Weinstein, Miami Beach, for appellant.
    Wicker, Smith, Tutan, O’Hara, McCoy, Graham, Lane & Ford and Paul H. Field, Miami, for appellee.
    Before LEVY, GERSTEN and GODERICH, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

“The awarding of costs is within the trial court’s discretion, ...” Digital Systems of Fla. v. Committe, 472 So.2d 533, 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied, 482 So.2d 348 (Fla.1986). In the instant case, the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in not taxing the costs of certain depositions. See Digital Systems, 472 So.2d at 537; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Sampaio, 374 So.2d 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Accordingly, we affirm the order under review.

LEVY, Judge

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. Although I agree with the majority’s recitation of the law, I do not agree with the application of that law to the facts in this case.

Specifically, referring to the depositions taken by the appellant/plaintiff, the trial court stated “I have no question, no doubt, that you had to do it”. Once the trial court made the foregoing finding of necessity regarding the depositions in question, it thereafter was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny appellant’s request to tax the costs of those depositions. Accordingly, I would reverse the order under review.