Case Name: OMER CORPORATION, doing business as Remo's Restaurant, Appellant, v. George DUKE, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1968-05-28
Citations: 211 So. 2d 48
Docket Number: No. 67-718
Parties: OMER CORPORATION, doing business as Remo’s Restaurant, Appellant, v. George DUKE, Appellee.
Judges: Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 211
Pages: 48–48

Head Matter:
OMER CORPORATION, doing business as Remo’s Restaurant, Appellant, v. George DUKE, Appellee.
No. 67-718.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
May 28, 1968.
Louis A. Sabatino, Miami, for appellant.
Norman Francis Haft, Miami, for ap-pellee.
Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, which was the defendant in the trial court, appeals a final judgment and assigns as error the trial court's denial of its motion for a new trial. It affirmatively appears from the record that a procedural irregularity, which was the basis of the motion for a new trial, occurred during the final argument of appellant's counsel before the jury retired. Appellant's counsel learned of it before the jury returned to deliver its verdict, but he did not complain until the adverse verdict had been announced. Under these circumstances we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, for a new trial. See Tyus v. Apalachicola Northern Railroad Company, Fla.1961, 130 So.2d 580, 587, 588.
Affirmed.