Case ID: so3d_232/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

Alberto Dalva MALZONE, et al., Appellants, v. Andres URIBE, et al., Appellees.
    No. 3D16-2608
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed November 1, 2017
    Law Offices of David S. Harris, and David S. Harris; Jennifer A. Kerr, P.A., and Jennifer A. Kerr, for appellants.
    Ronald I. Strauss, P.A., and Ronald I. Strauss, for appellees.
    Before LAGOA, EMAS and SCALES, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Williams v. Miami-Dade Cty. Public Health Tr., 17 So.3d 859, 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion when its sanctions order was well-supported by the evidence); P.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 709 So.2d 590, 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (“We do not consider the question of adequate notice because Appellants did not object to the lack of notice in the proceedings below or request a continuance. The first time they raised the issue was on appeal. By failing to object and by proceeding on the matter at the hearing, Appellants waived their objections to the lack of notice.).