GRAPE LEAF CAPITAL, INC.
v.
NATHALY LAFONTANT, ETC., ET AL.
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.
When a motion for summary judgment is denied due to a genuine dispute of material fact, that dispute is tried before a jury, and the evidence supports the jury's verdict, any error in denying the motion for summary judgment is moot and harmless.
[1] When a trial court denies a motion for summary judgment due to a genuine dispute of material fact, and the case proceeds to jury trial with a verdict supported by evidenc…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGrape Leaf Capital, Inc. brought an action against Nathaly Lafontant, Clement R. Dean, Jr., and Clement R. Dean, Jr., P.A. The trial court denied Grap…
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 Genuine Dispute Of Material Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
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.
2
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Robenson v. McNEIL, 31 So. 3d 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Sunrise Lakes Condo. Apts. Phase III v. Frank, 73 So. 3d 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Devolro Inc. v. Daniyar Kungeibayev (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)