Case Name: Carmine BRANCACCIO and Helen Brancaccio, his wife, Appellants, v. JACKAL CORPORATION, d/b/a Danny's Restaurant, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1994-05-03
Citations: 641 So. 2d 114
Docket Number: No. 93-820
Parties: Carmine BRANCACCIO and Helen Brancaccio, his wife, Appellants, v. JACKAL CORPORATION, d/b/a Danny’s Restaurant, Appellee.
Judges: Before JORGENSON, GERSTEN and GODERICH, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 641
Pages: 114–116

Head Matter:
Carmine BRANCACCIO and Helen Brancaccio, his wife, Appellants, v. JACKAL CORPORATION, d/b/a Danny’s Restaurant, Appellee.
No. 93-820.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 3, 1994.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 31, 1994.
Ronald L. Giroux, Miami, for appellants.
James C. Kelley, Miami, for appellee.
Before JORGENSON, GERSTEN and GODERICH, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The appellants have failed to provide a' transcript of the proceedings below or a proper substitute and, therefore, the trial court's ruling must be presumed correct. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1980); In re Guardianship of Read, 555 So.2d 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Ahmed v. Travelers Indem. Co., 516 So.2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Unlike the court in Gold, Vann & White, P.A. v. DeBerry, 1994 WL 150171 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), we are unable to adequately review the entire trial court record to determine whether the contents of the notes and drawings were important enough to the issues of the case to require a new trial. See Gills v. Angelis, 312 So.2d 536 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So.2d 17 (Fla.1976); Schoeppl v. Okolowitz, 133 So.2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). Accordingly, the trial court's order denying the plaintiffs' request for a new trial is affirmed.
GODERICH, J., concurs.