Salam v. Benmelech

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Salam v. Benmelech

622 So. 2d 592, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8363, 1993 WL 302303

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 10, 1993

DocketNo. 92-2752

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 622 So. 2d 592 (Salam v. Benmelech) 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

Salam v. Benmelech, 622 So. 2d 592, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8363, 1993 WL 302303 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, who was the plaintiff below, seeks review, by a notice of appeal filed on December 17, 1992, of a final judgment entered October 27, 1992 and an order of December 1, 1992 denying a motion for “modification” of the final judgment which was served on November 12, 1992. We have no jurisdiction to review the final judgment because the time of its rendition was not postponed under Fla.R.App.P. 9.020(g) by the untimely service of the modification motion — which was in fact a motion to alter or amend the judgment — beyond the ten day period provided by Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530(g). Dominguez v. Barakat, 609 So.2d 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). While the notice of appeal was filed within thirty days of the order denying the untimely post-judgment motion, that order is not reviewable. Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(4).

Appeal dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, who was the plaintiff below, seeks review, by a notice of appeal filed on December 17, 1992, of a final judgment entered October 27, 1992 and an order of December 1, 1992 denying a motion for “modification” of the final judgment which was served on November 12, 1992. We have no jurisdiction to review the final judgment because the time of its rendition was not postponed under Fla.R.App.P. 9.020(g) by the untimely service of the modification motion — which was in fact a motion to alter or amend the judgment — beyond the ten day period provided by Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530(g). Dominguez v. Barakat, 609 So.2d 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). While the notice of appeal was filed within thirty days of the order denying the untimely post-judgment motion, that order is not reviewable. Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(4).

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

622 So. 2d 592, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8363, 1993 WL 302303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salam-v-benmelech-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack