Ciporkin v. Irwin Contracting, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ciporkin v. Irwin Contracting, Inc.

124 So. 3d 256, 2013 WL 4525755, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 13660

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 28, 2013

DocketNo. 2D12-589

StatusPublished

This text of 124 So. 3d 256 (Ciporkin v. Irwin Contracting, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ciporkin v. Irwin Contracting, Inc., 124 So. 3d 256, 2013 WL 4525755, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 13660 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

George P. Ciporkin (the Plaintiff) appeals from a final judgment in which he was awarded zero dollars, after setoffs, against Irwin Contracting, Inc. (“Irwin”). The case involves negligence claims, including both personal injury and property damage claims, arising from water leakage in 2007 at his new condominium unit. We have carefully reviewed the entire record in this complex case. Although the jury’s verdict in favor of the Plaintiff was not generous and the inclusion of Irwin’s claims against third-party defendants made a complex case even more difficult to try, we cannot hold that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Plaintiffs motion for new trial or in refusing to sever the claims against the third parties. We have found no preserved error that would permit us to give the Plaintiff any relief from this judgment.

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND, WALLACE, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

George P. Ciporkin (the Plaintiff) appeals from a final judgment in which he was awarded zero dollars, after setoffs, against Irwin Contracting, Inc. (“Irwin”). The case involves negligence claims, including both personal injury and property damage claims, arising from water leakage in 2007 at his new condominium unit. We have carefully reviewed the entire record in this complex case. Although the jury’s verdict in favor of the Plaintiff was not generous and the inclusion of Irwin’s claims against third-party defendants made a complex case even more difficult to try, we cannot hold that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Plaintiffs motion for new trial or in refusing to sever the claims against the third parties. We have found no preserved error that would permit us to give the Plaintiff any relief from this judgment.

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND, WALLACE, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 So. 3d 256, 2013 WL 4525755, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 13660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ciporkin-v-irwin-contracting-inc-fladistctapp-2013.