Case Name: PORTOFINO RESTAURANT, INC., and Richard Day, individually, Appellants, v. UTAH STATE RETIREMENT FUND, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1989-05-09
Citations: 543 So. 2d 328
Docket Number: No. 88-582
Parties: PORTOFINO RESTAURANT, INC., and Richard Day, individually, Appellants, v. UTAH STATE RETIREMENT FUND, Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and COPE, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 543
Pages: 328–328

Head Matter:
PORTOFINO RESTAURANT, INC., and Richard Day, individually, Appellants, v. UTAH STATE RETIREMENT FUND, Appellee.
No. 88-582.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 9, 1989.
Alan M. Sorota and Michael Lechtman, North Miami Beach, for appellants.
Rasco, Reininger & Dannheisser and Steven R. Reininger and Sharon L. Blake, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and COPE, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We conclude that on this record the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants' motion for leave to amend their answer and affirmative defenses. Although Roberts v. Braynon, 90 So.2d 623, 627 (Fla.1956), counsels liberality in granting leave to amend in the circumstances set forth therein, in the present case the subject matter of the proposed amendment was already embraced in appellants' counterclaim, which remains pending, or is susceptible of being included in the pending counterclaim by amendment. As an alternative avenue of relief is available, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. We therefore affirm the summary judgment in favor of appellee but strike the execution pending adjudication of the counterclaim.
Affirmed as modified.
. We construe appellants' motion as a timely motion for rehearing pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530.