Grape Leaf Capital, Inc. v. Nathaly Lafontant, Etc.

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed October 15, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-1841 Lower Tribunal No. 19-3629-CP-02 ________________

Grape Leaf Capital, Inc., Appellant,

vs.

Nathaly Lafontant, Clement R. Dean, Jr., and Clement R. Dean, Jr., P.A., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Yvonne Colodny, Judge.

Steven K. Schwartz, P.A., and Steven K. Schwartz (Delray Beach), for appellant.

Law Offices of Clement R. Dean, Jr., and Clement R. Dean, Jr. (Sunrise), for appellees Clement R. Dean, Jr., and Clement R. Dean, Jr., P.A.

Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and GOODEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

After an adverse jury verdict and final judgment, Appellant Grape Leaf Capital, Inc. challenges the denial of its motion for summary judgment and motion for new trial. Because the trial court denied the motion for summary judgment due to a genuine dispute of material fact, that dispute was tried before a jury, and the evidence supports the jury’s verdict, any error in denying the motion for summary judgment is moot and rendered harmless. Devolro Inc. v. Kungeibayev, 407 So. 3d 1252, 1254 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025); Sunrise Lakes Condo. Apts. Phase III, Inc. 5 v. Frank, 73 So. 3d 901, 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Likewise, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial. See Graham Cos. v. Amado, 305 So. 3d 572, 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). It was within the jury’s province to resolve the conflicting factual disputes at trial. Weatherly v. Louis, 31 So. 3d 803, 805– 06 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). Accordingly, we affirm in all respects.1

Affirmed.

1 Grape Leaf raises a third issue, which we affirm without comment.