Court Opinion

ID: 9950097
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 14:04:52.778192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:35:50.573014
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                                State of Florida

                         Opinion filed March 13, 2024.
        Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                              No. 3D22-1632
                        Lower Tribunal No. 20-11660

                          5350 Park, LLC, etc.,
                                   Appellant,

                                      vs.

                            Grycon LLC., etc.,
                                   Appellee.

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

     Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, Joy Spillis Lundeen,
Michael A. Hanzman, Felix X. Rodriguez, and Kelly R. Melchiondo; Link &
Rockenbach, PA, Kara Rockenbach Link, and Scott J. Link (West Palm
Beach), for appellant.

     Siegfried Rivera and Stuart Sobel; Wallen | Kelley and Todd L.
Wallen; Kenny Nachwalter, P.A., and Deborah S. Corbishley, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES and LOBREE, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed. See Fla. Mining & Materials v. Mobley, 649 So. 2d 934, 934

(Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“[C]ase[s] may not be retried on appeal, and a ruling

which is supported by competent substantial evidence will be upheld even

though there may be some persuasive evidence to the contrary.”);

Vermeulen v. Worldwide Holidays, Inc., 922 So. 2d 271, 273 (Fla. 3d DCA

2006) (“Mere speculation or inference of negligence is insufficient to defeat

summary judgment.”); Ramsey v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 124 So. 3d 415,

418 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (“Conclusory, general assertions do not create

factual disputes necessary to avoid summary judgment.”); McCoy v.

Hollywood Quarries, Inc., 544 So. 2d 274, 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (holding

that order which was not appealed was law of the case and prohibited litigant

from arguing matters to the contrary in subsequent appeal); Polaco v. Smith,

376 So. 2d 409, 409 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (explaining that failure to object to

witness testimony at trial waives the objection); State v. Hampton, 44 So. 3d

661, 664-65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (requiring that an objection challenging the

sufficiency of the evidence must be raised at trial in order to preserve it for

appellate review).

                                      2