NEIGHBORHOOD RESTAURANT PARTNERS FLORIDA, LLC
v.
KIRK B. WOLFF, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF PETER WOLFF
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.
A trial court properly grants a new trial when defense counsel makes a clearly improper, inflammatory statement in closing argument that violates the court's prior order and is not curable by a jury instruction.
[1] A trial court may grant a new trial when counsel's closing argument contains statements that are untrue, violate prior court orders, are highly prejudicial and inflammato…
[2] A new trial may be granted on all issues when counsel's misconduct during closing arguments deprives a party of a fair trial.
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“The misconduct of Appellant's counsel has resulted in unnecessary expense to his client and to Appellee, a waste of judicial resources, and inconvenience to the jurors who took four days out of their lives listening to evidence and rendering a verdict, given that the case must be retried before a new jury. Such conduct cannot be condoned”
Court's statement emphasizing the serious consequences of counsel's misconduct and justifying referral to the Florida Bar
A slip and fall accident occurred at the defendant restaurant. During closing argument, the defendant's counsel made a clearly improper statement that…
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 Judicial Resources cases and more on FLexlaw
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
Case No. 5D22-1029 LT Case No. 05-2020-CA-012922
_____________________________
NEIGHBORHOOD RESTAURANT PARTNERS FLORIDA, LLC,
Appellant,
v. KIRK B. WOLFF, as PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE of the ESTATE of PETER WOLFF,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County. George Paulk, Judge. G. Jeffrey Vernis and Isam J. Alsafeer, of Vernis & Bowling of Melbourne, P.A., Melbourne, for Appellant. Brian J. Lee, of Morgan & Morgan, Jacksonville, for Appellee.
March1, 2024 EDWARDS, C.J.
Appellant/Defendant, Neighborhood Restaurant Partners Florida, LLC, appeals the trial court’s order granting new trial.1 This case involved a slip and fall accident in one of Appellant’s restaurants. During closing argument, Appellant’s counsel, G. Jeffrey Vernis, made a clearly improper statement that the trial court determined: (1) was not true, (2) violated the court’s prior order, (3) was highly prejudicial, (4) highly inflammatory, (5) not curable by the curative instruction given by the trial court, and (6) deprived Appellee/Plaintiff, Peter Wolff, of a fair trial.2
The defense verdict rendered by the jury was set aside and a new trial ordered as to all issues. Based on our review of the record on appeal, we agree with the trial court’s findings and its description of Appellant’s counsel’s statement in closing argument.3 Furthermore, we find the remedy of a new trial on all issues to be appropriate under the circumstances. We affirm.
The misconduct of Appellant’s counsel has resulted in unnecessary expense to his client and to Appellee, a waste of judicial resources, and inconvenience to the jurors who took four days out of their lives listening to evidence and rendering a verdict, given that the case must be retried before a new jury. Such conduct cannot be condoned; accordingly, we direct the Clerk of our Court to forward a copy of this opinion, a copy of the trial court’s order granting new trial, and copies of the parties’ briefs to the Florida Bar, which can determine what further action is appropriate.
AFFIRMED. KILBANE, J., concurs. MAKAR, J., concurring in large part with opinion.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
Case No. 5D22-1029 LT Case No. 05-2020-CA-012922 MAKAR, J., concurring in large part.
Affirmance is warranted. The trial judge issued a clear pre- trial order, saw it violated firsthand, and made supportable findings as to the mega-blunder of defendant’s experienced trial counsel. The grant of a new trial was proper. At oral argument on appeal, trial counsel could have argued that he had a bad day in closing argument and shouldn’t have said what he did; he could have expressed regret and admitted it was a mistake but not so bad as to warrant a new trial. He insisted to the contrary, however, and ran into an avoidable buzz saw rather than concede what was apparent. As such, I fully concur but have hesitation in referring the matter to The Florida Bar. Trial counsel had a bad day in closing (and a not so good day at oral argument in this court) but not so bad as to warrant bar referral absent more. The opinions in this case, which are less than flattering about trial counsel’s conduct, serve as adequate comeuppance.