James Goosby v. the Bank of New York Mellon F/K/A the Bank of New York, Etc.
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledAugust 13, 2026
Docket3D2025-2471
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed August 13, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-2471
Lower Tribunal No. 16-29580-CA-01
________________
James Goosby,
Appellant,
vs.
The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York,
etc., et al.,
Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Antonio
Arzola, Judge.
Louis C. Arslanian (Hollywood), for appellant.
Greenspoon Marder LLP, and Dariel Abrahamy (Boca Raton); The
Griffith Law Firm, P.A., and Derek R. Griffith, for appellees.
Before GORDO, LOBREE and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Vogel, 137 So. 3d 491, 493 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2014) (“The standard of review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion to
set aside a foreclosure sale is whether the trial court grossly abused its
discretion.”); Beacon Hill Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Colfin Ah-Florida 7,
LLC, 221 So. 3d 710, 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“The standard of review on
appeal of a motion for rehearing is abuse of discretion.”); Bank of Am., N.A.
v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 338 So. 3d 338, 341 n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“A trial
court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for reconsideration
or rehearing which raises an issue that could have, but wasn’t, raised in the
initial motion or at the initial hearing.”); Grossfeld v. CV Funding, LLC, 432
So. 3d 683, 685 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026) (stating an evidentiary hearing is not
required where there is insufficient dispute regarding “existence, validity, or
terms” of settlement agreement).
2