Steven Sanzaro v. Katherine Grace Crowe

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: March 21, 2025
• Docket: 6D2023-1796
• Status: Published

Opinion

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case No. 6D2023-1796 Lower Tribunal No. 22-035515DR C _____________________________

STEVEN SANZARO,

Appellant, v.

KATHERINE GRACE CROWE,

Appellee. _____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County. John S. Carlin, Judge.

March 21, 2025

PER CURIAM.

Steven Sanzaro challenges the trial court’s final judgment of injunction for

protection against stalking and raises three issues on appeal. We affirm as to all

three, but we find one issue merits comment. As his first issue, Sanzaro argues the

trial court erred in denying his request to appear telephonically at the final

evidentiary hearing on Appellee Katherine Grace Crowe’s petition for injunction for

protection against stalking. We find Sanzaro’s argument for reversal on this point

fails under the applicable abuse of discretion standard. On this record, we cannot say that “no reasonable man would take the view

adopted by the trial court” or that the trial court’s action was “arbitrary, fanciful, or

unreasonable.” See Johnson v. State, 397 So. 3d 626, 639 (Fla. 2024) (“[D]iscretion

‘is abused when the judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, which is

another way of saying that discretion is abused only where no reasonable man would

take the view adopted by the trial court.’” (quoting Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.

2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980))). Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

WHITE and BROWNLEE, JJ., concur. LAMBERT, B.D., Associate Judge, concurs in part, and dissents in part, with opinion.

_____________________________

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED _____________________________

LAMBERT, B.D., Associate Judge, concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part.

I concur with the majority opinion’s affirmance on two of the three issues

raised by Appellant for reversal. However, under the circumstances of the case,

because I believe that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the indigent,

non-resident Appellant’s motion to appear telephonically at the final hearing, I

would reverse the final judgment of injunction for protection against stalking and

2 remand for further proceedings.1 Accordingly, I respectfully dissent as to the

majority’s affirmance on the first issue raised by Appellant in this appeal.

Steven Sanzaro, Las Vegas, Nevada, pro se.

Katherine Grace Crowe, Bonita Springs, pro se.

1 To be clear, I take no position on the merits of either Appellee’s petition for the injunction or Appellant’s defense to the petition. 3