Joseph F. Maimone Security & Investigations, Inc. v. American Express Travel Related Services, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Joseph F. Maimone Security & Investigations, Inc. v. American Express Travel Related Services, Inc.

598 So. 2d 272, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5210, 1992 WL 98307

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 12, 1992·No. No. 91-1085·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Joseph F. Maimone Security and Investigations, Inc., plaintiff below, appeals a judgment in favor of defendant American Express Travel Related Services, Inc. We conclude first, that plaintiff opened the door to the evidence about criminal proceedings relating to Joseph F. Maimone. See M. Graham, Handbook of Florida Evidence § 104.1, at 19-22 (1987); see also Jackson v. State, 359 So.2d 1190, 1193-94 (Fla.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1102, 99 S.Ct. 881, 59 L.Ed.2d 63 (1979). Second, we find no error in the exclusion of [273] testimony of two witnesses regarding the origin of one clause in the contract between the parties. The question was whether the clause had been breached; the background of the clause did not add to an understanding of it and was properly excluded as irrelevant and cumulative to testimony already received. See § 90.612(1), Fla.Stat. (1991).

In light of the affirmance on liability, the appellant’s third point on appeal, which relates to the measure of damages, is moot.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Joseph F. Maimone Security and Investigations, Inc., plaintiff below, appeals a judgment in favor of defendant American Express Travel Related Services, Inc. We conclude first, that plaintiff opened the door to the evidence about criminal proceedings relating to Joseph F. Maimone. See M. Graham, Handbook of Florida Evidence § 104.1, at 19-22 (1987); see also Jackson v. State, 359 So.2d 1190, 1193-94 (Fla.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1102, 99 S.Ct. 881, 59 L.Ed.2d 63 (1979). Second, we find no error in the exclusion of [273] testimony of two witnesses regarding the origin of one clause in the contract between the parties. The question was whether the clause had been breached; the background of the clause did not add to an understanding of it and was properly excluded as irrelevant and cumulative to testimony already received. See § 90.612(1), Fla.Stat. (1991).

In light of the affirmance on liability, the appellant’s third point on appeal, which relates to the measure of damages, is moot.

Affirmed.

Joseph F. Maimone Security & Investigations, Inc. v. American Express Travel Related Services, Inc., 598 So. 2d 272, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5210, 1992 WL 98307 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

598 So. 2d 272 (Joseph F. Maimone Security & Investigations, Inc. v. American Express Travel Related Services, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.