From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brafman v. Rybalka

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jun 5, 1996
673 So. 2d 525 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Opinion

No. 95-2786.

April 24, 1996. Rehearing Denied June 5, 1996.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County; Marshall Ader, Judge.

Sparkman, Robb, Nelson Mason and John W. Reis, Miami, for appellants.

Rosen Switkes, Miami Beach, Buchbinder Elegant, P.A., and Ira Elegant, Miami, for appellees.

Before JORGENSON, COPE and GERSTEN, JJ.


Defendants in a personal injury action appeal from an order granting a new trial based upon defense counsel's closing argument. We affirm.

"[T]he appropriate standard for district courts on review of a trial court's motion granting a new trial . . . is whether the trial court abused its `broad discretion.' If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then there is no abuse of discretion." Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So.2d 1341, 1342 (Fla. 1981). We find no such abuse of discretion in this case. The comments made by defense counsel in his closing argument were so inflammatory and offensive that we decline to repeat them here and memorialize them in the annals of reported decisions; they were "so prejudicial as to be incapable of cure by rebuke or retraction. . . ." Borden, Inc. v. Young, 479 So.2d 850, 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 488 So.2d 832 (Fla. 1986).

Although the transcript is not entirely clear as to whether plaintiff actually asked the trial court to reserve ruling on a motion for mistrial based upon defense counsel's improper closing remarks, the record is replete with plaintiff's objections to the remarks. Those objections were sufficient to support plaintiff's post-trial motion for a new trial. See Martino v. Metropolitan Dade County, 655 So.2d 151, 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (even in absence of contemporaneous objections to improper remarks in closing argument, cumulative effect of improper and prejudicial comments rises to level of fundamental error); Borden, Inc. v. Young, 479 So.2d at 851 (same).

The trial court admonished counsel not to make further contemporaneous objections during closing arguments, and to save them for the end of the arguments.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Brafman v. Rybalka

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jun 5, 1996
673 So. 2d 525 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
Case details for

Brafman v. Rybalka

Case Details

Full title:YAAKOV BRAFMAN AND VALUE RENT-A-CAR, INC., APPELLANTS, v. VICTOR RYBALKA…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Jun 5, 1996

Citations

673 So. 2d 525 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Citing Cases

Werneck v. Worrall

Although a trial court has considerable discretion on motions for mistrial or new trial, when reasonable men…

Dewitt v. Maruhachi Ceramics of America, Inc.

Rather, the appellate court is limited to considering whether or not the trial court abused its discretion in…