Court Opinion

ID: 9367647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-01 16:02:58.643379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:01.788061
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                       Opinion filed February 1, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D21-2101
                       Lower Tribunal No. 19-33861
                          ________________

                            Krisia del Prado,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

        Optimus U.S. 801 NW 47th Ave, LLC, etc., et al.,
                                 Appellees.

    An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William
Thomas, Judge.

     Law Office of Michael Garcia Petit, P.A., and Michael Garcia Petit
(Miramar), for appellant.

      Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A., and Scott M. Dimond and Lorenz
Michel Prüss; and Kula & Associates, P.A., and Elliot B. Kula, for
appellees.

Before HENDON, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.

     HENDON, J.
      Krisia del Prado (“del Prado”) seeks to reverse a September 22, 2021

final judgment following a jury verdict, and a September 29, 2021 order

denying her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”). We

affirm.

      An “order on a motion for . . . judgment notwithstanding the verdict is

reviewed de novo." Hernandez v. Mishali, 319 So. 3d 753, 757 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2021). When “deciding the appropriateness of a . . . JNOV, Florida

trial and appellate courts use the test of whether the verdict is . . .

supported by competent, substantial evidence.” Siegel v. Cross Senior

Care, Inc., 239 So. 3d 738, 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); Marriott Int'l, Inc. v.

Am. Bridge Bahamas, Ltd., 193 So. 3d 902, 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)

(holding that in reviewing a ruling on a motion for JNOV, “[a]ppellate courts

are required to evaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party, and abstain from reweighing any conflicting or

ambiguous evidence presented below”). On de novo review, we find the

verdict   is   supported   by   competent,   substantial   record   evidence.

Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment and the order denying del Prado’s

motion for JNOV.

      Affirmed.

                                      2