Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): DCA 1995). With regard to Jain and Murphy’s appeal of the final judgment, we find that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings excluding certain evidence and, to the extent that any evidence was erroneously excluded, such error was harmless. See Special v. West Boca Med. Ctr., 160 So.3d 1251 (Fla. 2014) (applying harmless error standard in a civil appeal, requiring the beneficiary of the error to establish that there is no reasonable probability that the error contributed to the verdict). We also hold that the trial court properly denied Jain and Murphy’s motion for directed verdict and properly granted Cohen’s motion for directed verdict on Jain and Murphy’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims. See Sanders v. ERP Operating Ltd. P’ship, 157 So.3d 273, 277 (Fla. 2015) (<HOLDING>); Tylinski v. Klein Auto., Inc., 90 So.3d 870, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an appellate court viewing the evidence and all inferences of fact in light most favorable to nonmoving party can affirm a directed verdict only where no proper view of the evidence could sustain a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party (B) recognizing that a motion for directed verdict should be granted when there is no reasonable evidence upon which a jury could legally predicate a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party (C) holding that the nonmoving party must present specific evidence from which a reasonable jury could return a verdict in its favor (D) holding that an appellate court considers all evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and grants the state all reasonable inferences (E) holding that the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and all doubts are resolved against the moving party
Output (English): recognizing that a motion for directed verdict should be granted when there is no reasonable evidence upon which a jury could legally predicate a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party