Case Name: DENNIES CONTRACTING CO., INC., etc., Appellant, v. Burton H. HERSH, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1997-12-31
Citations: 702 So. 2d 1381
Docket Number: No. 97-1652
Parties: DENNIES CONTRACTING CO., INC., etc., Appellant, v. Burton H. HERSH, Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and SHEVIN and SORONDO, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 702
Pages: 1381–1382

Head Matter:
DENNIES CONTRACTING CO., INC., etc., Appellant, v. Burton H. HERSH, Appellee.
No. 97-1652.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Dec. 31, 1997.
James E. Glass and Paul M. Woodson, Miami, for appellant.
Barney B. Avchen, Hialeah, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and SHEVIN and SORONDO, JJ.

Opinion:
SCHWARTZ, C.J.
The appellee Hersh is an architect, who sued the appellant, a roofing contractor, on a claim it had orally agreed that if Hersh recommended it to another architect who was in charge of a large project for the repair of hurricane damage and it eventually got the job, the company would pay Hersh a fee of what was subsequently agreed to be approximately 4% of the contract price. The jury returned a verdict of $138,108.00 for Hersh, and after its post trial motions were denied, the company now appeals from the resulting judgment.
It is clear that the plaintiffs claim is supported by the law, see Monopoly Realty, Inc. v. World Business Brokers, Inc., 562 So.2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), and a view of the evidence, primarily Hersh's own sworn testimony the jury had a right to accept. We confess that we are skeptical as to the accuracy of a finding that a roofer agreed to pay over $138,000.00 merely for suggesting its availability in the post-Andrew era when roofers were almost impossible to come by at any price. Nevertheless, because we cannot in good conscience find that the result is so obviously contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and the "justice of the cause" as to fall within that narrow class of cases in which an appellate court may grant a new trial notwithstanding the existence of evidence which justifies the verdict, see Branam v. Aqua-Clear Pools, Inc., 672 So.2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), we are bound to affirm. See Espino v. Anez, 665 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Raheb v. Di Battisto, 483 So.2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Affirmed.