Case Name: SUNSHINE KITCHENS, INC., Appellant, v. Joel MALLIN, Mark Kay, American Home Assurance Company, Gulf Insurance Company and Lawrence Suslow, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1980-09-16
Citations: 388 So. 2d 1260
Docket Number: Nos. 79-969, 79-1735
Parties: SUNSHINE KITCHENS, INC., Appellant, v. Joel MALLIN, Mark Kay, American Home Assurance Company, Gulf Insurance Company and Lawrence Suslow, Appellees.
Judges: Before HENDRY, HUBBART and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 388
Pages: 1260–1261

Head Matter:
SUNSHINE KITCHENS, INC., Appellant, v. Joel MALLIN, Mark Kay, American Home Assurance Company, Gulf Insurance Company and Lawrence Suslow, Appellees.
Nos. 79-969, 79-1735.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Sept. 16, 1980.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 5, 1980.
Bailey & Dawes and Guy B. Bailey, Jr., Miami, for appellant.
Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Davant, Tu-tan, O’Hara & McCoy and Richard A. Sherman, Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Ban-ick & Strickroot and Michael J. Cappucio, Carey, Dwyer, Cole, Selwood & Bernard and Steven R. Berger, Miami, for appellees.
Before HENDRY, HUBBART and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The final summary judgment under review is affirmed upon a holding that there are no triable claims on this record for legal malpractice and other related actions because (a) the sole genuine issue of material fact argued by the plaintiff in the court below [namely, whether the defendants obtained a self-amortizing lease for the plaintiff as requested] was not raised by the plaintiff's operative complaint as amended, was not sought to be raised by any proposed amendments to said complaint, and was, in our view, immaterial based on this record in that the claimed variance regarding the lease was insubstantial and, in any event, led to no consequential injury to the plaintiff, and (b) the balance of the issues of fact now asserted as genuine and material by the plaintiff upon this appeal were not raised in its operative complaint as amended, were not argued in the court below and, indeed, were abandoned by implication at the hearing on the motions for summary judgment below, and were, in our view, immaterial based on this record in that the acts now claimed to be malpractice, breach of contract, and fraud were, in part, known to and approved by the plaintiff and, in any event, led to no consequential injury to the plaintiff. Weiner v. Moreno, 271 So.2d 217 (Fla.3d DCA 1973).
The order awarding $386 in costs for air fare for counsel to attend depositions in reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to vacate such cost order upon a holding that such air fare expenses are not taxable costs. Butler v. Borowsky, 120 So.2d 656, 660 (Fla.3d DCA 1960).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.