ARISLEIDY RIVERS AND ANDY SORIA v. GANCEDO LUMBER CO., INC.
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledApril 29, 2020
Docket3D18-0917
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
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. 3D18-0917
Lower Tribunal No. 12-2052
________________
Arisleidy Rivers and Andy Soria,
Appellants,
vs.
Gancedo Lumber Co., Inc., et al.,
Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Monica Gordo,
Judge.
Kanner & Pintaluga, P.A., and Blair M. Dickert (Boca Raton), for appellants.
GrayRobinson, P.A., and Jack R. Reiter and Robert C. Weill, for appellees.
Before LOGUE, HENDON and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Stripling v. State, 664 So. 2d 2, 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
(rejecting claim of undue restriction on voir dire where error was unpreserved, as
counsel “affirmatively accepted the jury . . . [and] did not renew his objection at that
time or at any time prior to the swearing of the jury”); Samuels v. Luxury Imps. of
Palm Beach, Inc., 930 So. 2d 760, 760-61 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (affirming where
alleged errors concerned “the improper admission of evidence relating to . . .
damages and improper argument . . . with respect to [them],” but they “were
harmless, because the jury never reached the issue of damages, having found for
[defendant] on the liability issues”); Zuniga v. Eisinger, 954 So. 2d 634, 636 (Fla.
3d DCA 2007) (trial court did not abuse discretion in action arising out of automobile
accident by denying plaintiff’s motion for new trial on grounds of defense counsel’s
unobjected-to statements in closing argument, where comments were not improper
or incurable, and argument did not damage fairness of trial); see also London v.
Dubrovin, 165 So. 3d 30, 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (“where individual claims of error
fail, a related cumulative error claim must likewise fail”).
2