ALBERTO PESCATORE DEEPER BLUE SEA LLC v. JOSE LUIS FERNANDEZ (2025)

ORDER ON POST-DISPOSITION MOTIONS

We sua sponte withdraw our order denying appellants’ post-disposition motions and substitute the following:

Appellants’ post-disposition motions appear to miss the point of the panel opinion. The opinion does not hold that a hearsay objection is insufficient to preserve an objection to hearsay. Here, after the appellants objected to “hearsay,” the appellee identified the business records exception to the rule against hearsay. At that point, it was incumbent upon the appellants to specify the infirmity in the predicate and obtain a ruling on the specific objection that they later asserted on appeal. See generally Carratelli v. State, 832 So. 2d 850, 856–57 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Had an objection been specific, it might have directed the trial judge's attention away from the issue of authentication to the perceived deficiency in the predicate for the business records exception.

We note that on the issue of the statute of frauds jury instruction, we affirmed on the two-issue rule.

The motions for rehearing, certification of questions, and stay are denied. As set forth above, the motion for written opinion is granted in part and denied in part.

Per Curiam.

Warner, Gross and Levine, JJ., concur.