Full Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 29, 2020. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D20-66 Lower Tribunal No. 14-31854 ________________ Zaida Plaza, LLC, Appellant, vs. Rafael Acurio and Pez de Oro Peruvian Food, Inc., Appellees. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Abby Cynamon, Judge. Antonio S. Gonzalez, for appellant. Corona Law Firm, P.A., and Ricardo M. Corona and Ricardo R. Corona, for appellees. Before EMAS, C.J., and GORDO and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Zaida Plaza appeals the trial court’s order denying its motion for remittitur. However, given the absence of a transcript of the relevant proceedings or a statement of the evidence or proceedings as permitted by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(5), appellant cannot sustain its burden of demonstrating reversible error, and none can be discerned on the face of the order under review. We therefore affirm. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (holding: “The question raised by [appellant] clearly involves underlying issues of fact. When there are issues of fact the appellant necessarily asks the reviewing court to draw conclusions about the evidence. Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal. The trial court should have been affirmed because the record brought forward by the appellant is inadequate to demonstrate reversible error.”); G & S Dev. Corp. v. Seitlin, 47 So. 3d 893, 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). See also Maggolc, Inc. v. Roberson, 116 So. 3d 556, 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (“We review the trial court's denial of [] post-trial motions for remittitur and new trial under the abuse of discretion standard.”) 2