Case Name: MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, Appellant, v. Ada BARILARI, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-06-13
Citations: 786 So. 2d 672
Docket Number: No. 3D00-2337
Parties: MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, Appellant, v. Ada BARILARI, Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEVIN, SORONDO, and RAMIREZ, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 786
Pages: 672–673

Head Matter:
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, Appellant, v. Ada BARILARI, Appellee.
No. 3D00-2337.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
June 13, 2001.
Robert A. Ginsburg, County Attorney, and Stephen J. Keating, Assistant County Attorney, for appellant.
Goldfarb, Gold, Gonzalez & Wald; and Barbara Green, for appellee.
Before SHEVIN, SORONDO, and RAMIREZ, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Vann v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 627 So.2d 601, 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (stating that "none of the comments made by defense counsel were so prejudicial or inflammatory as to require mistrial, or a new trial, especially where the witness never answered the question and no evidence on the issue was ever presented to the jury"); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gutierrez, 731 So.2d 151, 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) ("find[ing] that the trial court properly sustained the objections when necessary and properly gave curative instructions when necessary that obviated the harm," and thus did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial).