Opinion
No. 3D21-2101
02-01-2023
Krisia DEL PRADO, Appellant, v. OPTIMUS U.S. 801 NW 47TH AVE, LLC, etc., et al., Appellees.
Law Office of Michael Garcia Petit, P.A., and Michael Garcia Petit (Miramar), for appellant. Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A., and Scott M. Dimond and Lorenz Michel Prüss ; and Kula & Associates, P.A., and Elliot B. Kula, for appellees.
Law Office of Michael Garcia Petit, P.A., and Michael Garcia Petit (Miramar), for appellant.
Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A., and Scott M. Dimond and Lorenz Michel Prüss ; and Kula & Associates, P.A., and Elliot B. Kula, for appellees.
Before HENDON, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.
HENDON, J.
Krisia del Prado ("del Prado") seeks to reverse a September 22, 2021 final judgment following a jury verdict, and a September 29, 2021 order denying her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("JNOV"). We affirm. An "order on a motion for ... judgment notwithstanding the verdict is reviewed de novo." Hernandez v. Mishali, 319 So. 3d 753, 757 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). When "deciding the appropriateness of a ... JNOV, Florida trial and appellate courts use the test of whether the verdict is ... supported by competent, substantial evidence." Siegel v. Cross Senior Care, Inc., 239 So. 3d 738, 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) ; Marriott Int'l, Inc. v. Am. Bridge Bahamas, Ltd., 193 So. 3d 902, 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (holding that in reviewing a ruling on a motion for JNOV, "[a]ppellate courts are required to evaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and abstain from reweighing any conflicting or ambiguous evidence presented below"). On de novo review, we find the verdict is supported by competent, substantial record evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment and the order denying del Prado's motion for JNOV.
Affirmed.