JASON ROBERT KONOSKI, APPELLANT,
v.
DARIUSH SHEKARKHAR, ETC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Jason Konoski appealed from a final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence, arguing the judgment lacked evidentiary support and that the trial court improperly excluded his cross-examination testimony. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the injunction, finding competent substantial evidence supported it and that Konoski failed to preserve the evidentiary issue for appeal.
1) The final judgment of injunction was supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore properly entered. 2) Konoski failed to properly preserve the evidentiary issue for appeal. 3) Appellee's appendix containing extra-record documents was stricken and appellate counsel was admonished for the improper conduct.
[1] A final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence is supported by competent substantial evidence if the record contains such evidence.
[2] An evidentiary issue is not properly preserved for appeal if the appellant failed to take the necessary steps to do so at the trial court level.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“it is 'entirely inappropriate and subjects the movant to possible sanctions to inject matters in the appellate proceedings which were not before the trial court.'”
Establishes the fundamental rule that appellate proceedings must be limited to the trial court record
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJason Konoski sought to appeal a final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence entered by the trial court. Konoski contested t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Domestic Violence Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
Jason Konoski appeals from the trial court’s entry of a final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence. He contends that 1) the final judgment is not supported by competent substantial evidence, and 2) the trial court erred in excluding testimony Appellant attempted to elicit from Appellee during cross-examination.
Our review of the record reveals competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s entry of the final judgment of injunction. As to the evidentiary issue, we hold that Appellant failed to properly preserve the issue for appeal. See Frances v. State, 970 So.2d 806 (Fla.2007); Greenwald v. Eisinger, Brown, Lewis & Frankel, P.A., 118 So.3d 867 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); A. McD. v. State, 422 So.2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Finally, and although having no effect on our ultimate determination, we note with substantial concern the actions of Appel-*90lee’s appellate counsel in filing an appendix containing documents outside the record which were never presented to, or considered by, the trial court. In fact, the documents contained in the appendix were generated, and pertain to events occurring, after the filing of the notice of appeal in this case. Appellee never sought leave before filing these extra-record documents, and it appears there would have been be no proper basis for granting leave had it been sought. It is axiomatic that appellate review must be limited to the record made before the trial court and it is “entirely inappropriate and subjects the movant to possible sanctions to inject matters in the appellate proceedings which were not before the trial court.” Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 511 So.2d 593, 595 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). As our sister court has noted:
When a party includes in an appendix material or matters outside the record, or refers to such material or matters in its brief, it is proper for the court to strike the same. That an appellate court may not consider matters outside the record is so elemental that there is no excuse for any attorney to attempt to bring such matters before the court.
Altchiler v. State, 442 So.2d 349, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (internal citations omitted).
We strike Appellee’s appendix to the answer brief and admonish counsel for her conduct in filing it.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Bank of NEW York Mellon v. Regis Bontoux (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
-
Aspen AIR Conditioning, Inc. v. Safeco Ins. Co. OF Am., 170 So. 3d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
Authorities Cited
- Frances v. State, 970 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 2007)
- Altchiler v. State, 442 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Cosme Rodriguez v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 422 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- McD. v. State, 422 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 511 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Allen R. and Jill F. Greenwald v. Eisinger, Brown, Lewis & Frankel, P.A., 118 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)