Case Name: CITY OF HALLANDALE, Appellant, v. ACMAR ENGINEERING CORP., etc., et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-03-28
Citations: 447 So. 2d 454
Docket Number: No. 83-1893
Parties: CITY OF HALLANDALE, Appellant, v. ACMAR ENGINEERING CORP., etc., et al., Appellees.
Judges: HURLEY, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 447
Pages: 454–454

Head Matter:
CITY OF HALLANDALE, Appellant, v. ACMAR ENGINEERING CORP., etc., et al., Appellees.
No. 83-1893.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
March 28, 1984.
John G. Fletcher, South Miami, and Steven L. Josias, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Marion E. Sibley of Sibley, Giblin, Leven-son & Glaser, Miami Beach, and Ira M. Elegant of Buchbinder & Elegant, P.A., Miami, for appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM. •
Our review of the record satisfies us that the actions of the appellant caused appel-lees to prepare additional sheets and supplements to their plans in an effort to meet appellant's objections. Such actions amounted to a change in circumstances which necessitated the trial court's action in entering its interim order which extended the time for compliance with the final judgment granting an injunction. We find that the trial judge acted properly and within his discretion. See, Jackson Grain Co. et al. v. Lee, 150 Fla. 232, 7 So.2d 143 (1942).
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order.
AFFIRMED.
HURLEY, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.