Eisner v. Hochstadt

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Eisner v. Hochstadt

621 So. 2d 1095, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8377, 1993 WL 302473

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 10, 1993

DocketNo. 92-1786

StatusPublished

This text of 621 So. 2d 1095 (Eisner v. Hochstadt) 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

Eisner v. Hochstadt, 621 So. 2d 1095, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8377, 1993 WL 302473 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Michael Eisner, defendant below, appeals a final judgment entered against him after a bench trial. Appellees A.M. Hochstadt, Max Hochstadt, and Rose Hochstadt, plaintiffs below, cross-appeal.

As to Eisner’s appeal, we conclude that no reversible error has been shown on the record now before us in the trial court’s denial of the motions to dismiss for lack of prosecution. Likewise no error is shown in the first point on cross-appeal, relating to the computation of interest. As to the second point on cross-appeal, in the absence of a record we are unable to ascertain the basis of the trial court’s ruling, which in the absence of a contrary showing is presumed to be correct. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Michael Eisner, defendant below, appeals a final judgment entered against him after a bench trial. Appellees A.M. Hochstadt, Max Hochstadt, and Rose Hochstadt, plaintiffs below, cross-appeal.

As to Eisner’s appeal, we conclude that no reversible error has been shown on the record now before us in the trial court’s denial of the motions to dismiss for lack of prosecution. Likewise no error is shown in the first point on cross-appeal, relating to the computation of interest. As to the second point on cross-appeal, in the absence of a record we are unable to ascertain the basis of the trial court’s ruling, which in the absence of a contrary showing is presumed to be correct. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

621 So. 2d 1095, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8377, 1993 WL 302473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eisner-v-hochstadt-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack