Court Opinion

ID: 9964988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 15:03:36.41473+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:39.422404
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                          Opinion filed May 1, 2024.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D23-0751
                        Lower Tribunal No. 17-5939
                           ________________

                        Philip Morris USA Inc.,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                         Barbra Hoffman, etc.,
                                  Appellee.

      An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne Del
Rio, Judge.

     Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP and David M. Menichetti
(Washington, D.C.); Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP and Scott A. Chesin and
Michael Rayfield (New York, N.Y.), for appellant.

    Gerson & Schwartz, P.A., and Edward Schwartz; Celene Humphries,
PLLC and Celene Humphries (Spring City, TN), for appellee.

Before EMAS, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed. See Ruchimora v. Grullon, 307 So. 3d 95, 97 (Fla. 3d DCA

2020) (“We review the denial of a motion for new trial and a trial court’s

evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.”); Hendry v. Zelaya, 841 So. 2d

572, 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (“A trial court has broad discretion concerning

the admissibility of evidence and its rulings will not be disturbed absent an

abuse of discretion.”); Thigpen v. United Parcel Services, Inc., 990 So. 2d

639, 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (finding that trial court did not abuse its

discretion in excluding evidence because (1) it was too remote in time and

purpose to be relevant, and (2) under section 90.403, Florida Statutes, the

danger of unfair prejudice outweighed any relevance of testimony; “It is well

settled that ‘[t]he determination of relevancy is within the discretion of the trial

court. Where a trial court has weighed probative value against prejudicial

impact before reaching its decision to admit or exclude evidence, an

appellate court will not overturn that decision absent a clear abuse of

discretion.’” (quoting Sims v. Brown, 574 So. 2d 131, 133 (Fla. 1991))); see

also Sims v. Brown, 574 So. 2d 131, 133 (Fla. 1991) (“The weighing of

relevance versus prejudice or confusion is best performed by the trial judge

who is present and best able to compare the two.”).

                                         2