Court Opinion

ID: 9946753
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 14:03:19.497322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:23:35.242234
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                      Case No. 5D22-1029
                 LT Case No. 05-2020-CA-012922
                 _____________________________

NEIGHBORHOOD RESTAURANT
PARTNERS FLORIDA, LLC,

    Appellant,

    v.

KIRK B. WOLFF, as PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE of the ESTATE
of PETER WOLFF,

    Appellee.
                 _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County.
George Paulk, Judge.

G. Jeffrey Vernis and Isam J. Alsafeer, of Vernis & Bowling of
Melbourne, P.A., Melbourne, for Appellant.

Brian J. Lee, of Morgan & Morgan, Jacksonville, for Appellee.

                         March 1, 2024

EDWARDS, C.J.
     Appellant/Defendant, Neighborhood Restaurant Partners
Florida, LLC, appeals the trial court’s order granting new trial. 1
This case involved a slip and fall accident in one of Appellant’s
restaurants. During closing argument, Appellant’s counsel, G.
Jeffrey Vernis, made a clearly improper statement that the trial
court determined: (1) was not true, (2) violated the court’s prior
order, (3) was highly prejudicial, (4) highly inflammatory, (5) not
curable by the curative instruction given by the trial court, and (6)
deprived Appellee/Plaintiff, Peter Wolff, of a fair trial. 2

    The defense verdict rendered by the jury was set aside and a
new trial ordered as to all issues. Based on our review of the record
on appeal, we agree with the trial court’s findings and its
description of Appellant’s counsel’s statement in closing
argument. 3 Furthermore, we find the remedy of a new trial on all
issues to be appropriate under the circumstances. We affirm.

     The misconduct of Appellant’s counsel has resulted in
unnecessary expense to his client and to Appellee, a waste of
judicial resources, and inconvenience to the jurors who took four
days out of their lives listening to evidence and rendering a verdict,
given that the case must be retried before a new jury. Such
conduct cannot be condoned; accordingly, we direct the Clerk of our
Court to forward a copy of this opinion, a copy of the trial court’s
order granting new trial, and copies of the parties’ briefs to the
Florida Bar, which can determine what further action is
appropriate.

    1 Appellant raised other issues on appeal, which we affirm

without need for discussion.
    2  Appellee’s trial counsel made a timely, contemporaneous
objection followed by a motion for mistrial. After a side bar
discussion, the court advised counsel that it would take the matter
under advisement. Written submissions were made by the parties
and a hearing was held, which led to the detailed new trial order.
    3 On the first day of trial, the court directly and specifically

cautioned Appellant’s counsel to refrain from making statements
such as the one he made in closing argument.

                                  2
    AFFIRMED.

KILBANE, J., concurs.
MAKAR, J., concurring in large part with opinion.

                 _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

                                3
                                             Case No. 5D22-1029
                                  LT Case No. 05-2020-CA-012922

MAKAR, J., concurring in large part.

     Affirmance is warranted. The trial judge issued a clear pre-
trial order, saw it violated firsthand, and made supportable
findings as to the mega-blunder of defendant’s experienced trial
counsel. The grant of a new trial was proper. At oral argument on
appeal, trial counsel could have argued that he had a bad day in
closing argument and shouldn’t have said what he did; he could
have expressed regret and admitted it was a mistake but not so
bad as to warrant a new trial. He insisted to the contrary, however,
and ran into an avoidable buzz saw rather than concede what was
apparent. As such, I fully concur but have hesitation in referring
the matter to The Florida Bar. Trial counsel had a bad day in
closing (and a not so good day at oral argument in this court) but
not so bad as to warrant bar referral absent more. The opinions in
this case, which are less than flattering about trial counsel’s
conduct, serve as adequate comeuppance.