Mayvis Gonzalez v. Jim Manesh

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: November 5, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-0741
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed November 5, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________

No. 3D24-0741 Lower Tribunal No. 19-26272-CA-01 ________________

Mayvis Gonzalez, Appellant,

vs.

Jim Manesh and Mimi Manesh, Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mavel Ruiz, Judge.

Florida Advocates, and Carlos D. Cabrera (Dania Beach), for appellant.

The Law Office of Warren B. Kwavnick, PLLC, and Warren B. Kwavnick (Pembroke Pines), for appellees.

Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY and GOODEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2024) (“Relevant evidence is

inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger

of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless

presentation of cumulative evidence.”); Sims v. Brown, 574 So. 2d 131, 133

(Fla. 1991) (“The weighing of relevance versus prejudice or confusion is best

performed by the trial judge who is present and best able to compare the

two.”); Trees v. K-Mart Corp., 467 So. 2d 401, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (“The

determination of relevancy is within the discretion of the trial court. Where a

trial court has weighed probative value against prejudicial impact before

reaching its decision to admit or exclude evidence, an appellate court will not

overturn that decision absent a clear abuse of discretion.”) (citation omitted);

see also Flores v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 787 So. 2d 955, 958 (Fla. 3d DCA

2001) (“Partiality, or any acts, relationships or motives reasonably likely to

produce it, may be proved to impeach credibility.”) (citing McCormick on

Evidence § 39 at 58–59 (5th ed. 1999)).