Avi Harel v. Kabel- X USA, LLC

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: January 2, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-0297
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed January 2, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-0297 Lower Tribunal No. 19-22438 ________________

Avi Harel, Appellant,

vs.

Kabel-X USA, LLC, et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Thomas J. Rebull, Judge.

Avi Harel, in proper person.

Berger Singerman LLP, and Alejandro M. Miyar and Ana E. Kauffmann, for appellees.

Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Spanakos v. Hawk Sys., Inc., 362 So. 3d 226, 245 (Fla.

4th DCA 2023) (“An appellant does not discharge [its] duty by merely posing

a question with an accompanying assertion that it was improperly answered

in the court below and then dumping the matter into the lap of the appellate

court for decision. Under such circumstances it must be held . . . that [the

appellate court is] under no duty to answer the question.” (quoting Lynn v.

City of Fort Lauderdale, 81 So. 2d 511, 513 (Fla. 1955))); Est. of Herrera v.

Berlo Indus., Inc., 840 So. 2d 272, 273 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (“[Appellant]

seeks to raise issues which were not raised in the trial court. However, issues

not presented in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

Thus, [appellant] is precluded from raising new arguments on appeal.”

(citation omitted)); see also K.R. Exch. Servs., Inc. v. Fuerst, Humphrey,

Ittleman, PL, 48 So. 3d 889, 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“It is well settled that

the court must consider an exhibit attached to the complaint together with

the complaint’s allegations, and that the exhibit controls when its language

is inconsistent with the complaint’s allegations.”).