From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zuckerman v. Window

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Dec 7, 2006
943 So. 2d 218 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

Summary

stating that although "we might conclude that the county court judgment and therefore its affirmance by the circuit court were erroneous, we cannot say that they so far departed from the essential requirements of law as to result in a miscarriage of justice as is required to justify our review at this stage"

Summary of this case from Granada Insu. Co. v. State

Opinion

No. 3D06-1022.

November 1, 2006. Rehearing Denied December 7, 2006.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Appellate Division, Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Paul Siegel, Michael A. Genden, and Herbert Stettin, Judges.

Alan R. Soven, Miami, for petitioners.

Randall L. Leshin, Pompano Beach, for respondent.

Before SHEPHERD and ROTHENBERG, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.


The petitioners seek second-tier certiorari review of a circuit court appellate division per curiam affirmance of a county court judgment, entered after we remanded the case for reconsideration of the appeal. See Zuckerman v. A B Window and Glass, Inc., 930 So.2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), review denied, 911 So.2d 792 (Fla. 2005).

Although, as an original matter, we might conclude that the county court judgment and therefore its affirmance by the circuit court were erroneous, we cannot say that they so far departed from the essential requirements of law as to result in a miscarriage of justice, as is required to justify our review at this stage. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So.2d 885 (Fla. 2003); Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So.2d 679 (Fla. 2000); S. Motor Co. of Dade County v. Doktorczyk, ___ So.2d, ___ 2006 WL 2520682, (Fla. 3d DCA Case no. 3D05-2244, opinion filed, September 1, 2006)[31 Fla. L. Weekly D2277]. We therefore deny relief.

Certiorari denied.


Summaries of

Zuckerman v. Window

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Dec 7, 2006
943 So. 2d 218 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

stating that although "we might conclude that the county court judgment and therefore its affirmance by the circuit court were erroneous, we cannot say that they so far departed from the essential requirements of law as to result in a miscarriage of justice as is required to justify our review at this stage"

Summary of this case from Granada Insu. Co. v. State
Case details for

Zuckerman v. Window

Case Details

Full title:Larry ZUCKERMAN and Beth Zuckerman, Petitioners, v. A B WINDOW AND GLASS…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Dec 7, 2006

Citations

943 So. 2d 218 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

Citing Cases

Granada Insu. Co. v. State

ity of Miami ordinance to justify that relief "); Ferrara v. Cmty. Developers, Ltd., 917 So.2d 907 (Fla. 3d…