Case Name: Ray DIPASQUALE, Appellant, v. MAROONE FORD, LLC., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2007-04-18
Citations: 954 So. 2d 691
Docket Number: No. 4D06-1997
Parties: Ray DIPASQUALE, Appellant, v. MAROONE FORD, LLC., Appellee.
Judges: GUNTHER, STONE and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 954
Pages: 691–691

Head Matter:
Ray DIPASQUALE, Appellant, v. MAROONE FORD, LLC., Appellee.
No. 4D06-1997.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
April 18, 2007.
Julie H. Littky-Rubin of Lytal, Reiter, Clark, Fountain & Williams, LLP., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Richard A. Ivers of the Law Office of Richard A. Ivers, Coral Springs, for appel-lee Maroone Ford, LLC.
Gordon Lea of the Law Office of Bohdan Neswiacheny, Fort Lauderdale, for appel-lee Mark Bond.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Tillman v. State, 471 So.2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985) ("In order to be preserved for further review by a higher court . the specific legal argument . to be argued on appeal or review must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved."); Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332, 338 (Fla.1982) ("in order for an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below.").
GUNTHER, STONE and FARMER, JJ., concur.