Michael V. Greenan, Appellant, v. LLC (2026)

AFFIRMED. See Harrell v. State, 894 So. 2d 935, 940 (Fla. 2005) (“Moreover, we consistently have stated that proper preservation entails three components. First, a litigant must make a timely, contemporaneous objection. Second, the party must state a legal ground for that objection. Third, ‘[i]n order for an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below.’ ” (quoting Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332, 338 (Fla. 1982))); Fi-Evergreen Woods, LLC v. Robinson, 135 So. 3d 331, 333 n.2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (“To preserve an issue for appellate review, the appellant must have obtained, inter alia, a ruling in the lower tribunal.” (citing Carratelli v. State, 832 So. 2d 850, 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002))); Stanton v. Fla. Dep't of Health, 129 So. 3d 1083, 1085 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“It is a well-established maxim of appellate practice that ‘[c]laims for which an appellant has not presented any argument, or for which he provides only conclusory argument, are insufficiently presented for review and are waived.’ ” (quoting Hammond v. State, 34 So. 3d 58, 59 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010))).

PER CURIAM.

WOZNIAK, MIZE and PRATT, JJ., concur.