Case ID: so3d_240/html/0035-01.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

Jose AGOSTINO, and Estefania Agostino, Appellants, v. RAMIREZ SUPER MOTORS, INC., d/b/a/ Ramirez Super Motors, a Fla. Corporation, and Jose Ramirez, Individually, John Doe and all others in possession, custody and control, Appellees.
    No. 3D17-0565
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017. Rehearing Denied February 23, 2018
    Alberto F. Sarasua, for appellants.
    T.P. Murphy's Law P.A., and Thomas P. Murphy, for appellees.
    Before SCALES, LUCK and LINDSEY, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See G & S Dev. Corp. v. Seitlin, 47 So.3d 893, 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) ("Without a record of the hearing, this Court cannot determine what issues were raised or argued by the parties during the hearing, and therefore, may reverse the decision 'only if an error of law appears on the face' of the order under review.") (quoting Whelan v. Whelan, 736 So.2d 732, 733 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) ); Id. (citing Chaiken v. Suchman, 694 So.2d 115, 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) ("Without a transcript, appellate courts cannot usually determine what issues were either raised or argued by the parties during a proceeding. As such, the lack of a transcript normally precludes appellate review.")); Id. (citing S. Fla. Apartment Ass'n v. Dansyear, 347 So.2d 710, 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (finding that it is the responsibility of the appellant to provide a sufficient record for review, and that the failure to do so leaves the appellate court with no alternative but to assume that the trial court ruled correctly)).