Opinion
3D22-429
01-04-2023
Sterling Mirror Company, LLC, etc., Appellant, v. Waldman Barnett, P.L., etc., Appellee.
Charles M. Baron, P.A., and Charles M. Baron (Hollywood), for appellant. Armstrong Teasdale LLP, and Glen H. Waldman and Marlon J. Weiss, for appellee.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County Lower Tribunal No. 18-14610, Vivianne Del Rio, Judge.
Charles M. Baron, P.A., and Charles M. Baron (Hollywood), for appellant.
Armstrong Teasdale LLP, and Glen H. Waldman and Marlon J. Weiss, for appellee.
Before EMAS, HENDON and MILLER, JJ.
EMAS, J.
Appellant, Sterling Mirror Company, LLC, a former client of Appellee Waldman Barnett, P.L., appeals the trial court's order denying its motion to vacate a final judgment entered against it. Following our review of the record below, we find no gross abuse of discretion, see Lewis v. Fifth Third Mortg. Co., 38 So.3d 157, 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (noting that a trial court's denial of a motion to vacate a default final judgment is reviewed for a gross abuse of discretion); Karan v. Pernia, 343 So.3d 689, 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), and, to the extent the order on appeal was premised upon questions of law, see Emami v. Progressive Brands, Inc., 225 So.2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (noting that whether judgment is void is a question of law reviewed de novo), our de novo review reveals no error by the trial court in those determinations. See also Sterling Mirror Co. v. Waldman Barnett, P.L., 325 So.3d 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (table).
Affirmed.