Case Name: H & E EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC., Appellant, v. Anthony M. RODRIGUEZ, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2017-05-17
Citations: 219 So. 3d 853
Docket Number: No. 4D16-1743
Parties: H & E EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC., Appellant, v. Anthony M. RODRIGUEZ, Appellee.
Judges: Warner, Levine and Forst, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 219
Pages: 853–853

Head Matter:
H & E EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC., Appellant, v. Anthony M. RODRIGUEZ, Appellee.
No. 4D16-1743
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
[May 17, 2017]
Rodney J. Janis and Michael McQuaide of Goldberg Segalla, LLP, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
George C. Vogelsang of The Vogelsang Law Firm, Sunrise, and John R. Kelso of Levey Lieberman LLP, Miami, for appel-lee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Appellant challenges the trial court's order granting a new trial on its own motion based upon appellant's improper closing argument in which appellant introduced facts outside of the evidence presented at trial. The court had the authority to grant such a motion, even though appellee had failed to request a mistrial. See Nigro v. Brady, 731 So.2d 54, 56 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530(c). Given the deference that trial courts are allowed in such matters, the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that appellant's presentation of facts not in evidence was prejudicial and warranted a new trial.
Affirmed.
Warner, Levine and Forst, JJ., concur.