Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A., s. 92-823
Citation | 629 So.2d 217 |
Decision Date | 07 December 1993 |
Docket Number | 92-1182,92-1361 and 92-1716,Nos. 92-823,s. 92-823 |
Parties | 18 Fla. L. Weekly D2579 DONALD S. ZUCKERMAN, P.A., Zuckerman & Venditti, P.A., and Donald S. Zuckerman, individually, Appellants, v. HOFRICHTER & QUIAT, P.A.; Alex Hofrichter, P.A., and Alex Hofrichter, individually, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Cooper & Wolfe and Sharon Wolfe, Miami, for appellants.
Wolpe Leibowitz Berger & Brotman and Steven R. Berger, Alex Hofrichter, Miami, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL *, HUBBART and GODERICH, JJ.
This is a consolidated appeal by Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A., Zuckerman and Venditti, P.A., and Donald S. Zuckerman, individually, [collectively Zuckerman] from an adverse final judgment entered after a non-jury trial, in which two court-appointed special masters filed reports with the court in the accounting phase of an action for dissolution of a law partnership. We have carefully reviewed Zuckerman's points on appeal, but find no reversible error presented and affirm.
First, we conclude that the trial court did not, as urged, commit reversible error in denying Zuckerman's post-judgment motion to vacate the final judgment. The fact that one of the special masters in the case did not hold a CPA license in Florida and testified below that he was a CPA did not, as urged, fatally taint the proceedings below. The special master held a CPA license in Washington, had sixteen years of experience in public accounting, and was fully qualified to do the complicated accounting work done below at the trial court's request. Although arguably he may have misspoke below by characterizing himself as a CPA because he was not licensed in this state, see Sec. 473.322, Fla.Stat. (1991). But cf. Martuccio v. Department of Professional Regulation, Bd. of Optometry, 622 So.2d 607, 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) ( ); Lee County Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Lowe, 344 So.2d 308, 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (same); this error, if any, is de minimus in nature under the circumstances of this case and affords no basis whatever to vacate the final judgment under review.
Second, the balance of Zuckerman's points are equally unpersuasive and require little discussion. The procedures followed by the special masters in this case in auditing the partnership accounts were agreed to below; Zuckerman was given credit for all sums to which he was entitled; Donald Zuckerman was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Alex Hofrichter, P.A. v. Zuckerman & Venditti, P.A.
...tried first. Those proceedings were concluded and resulted in a judgment in favor of Hofrichter. See Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A., 629 So.2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); see also Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Alex Hofrichter, P.A., 676 So.2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA In the second ......
-
Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Alex Hofrichter, P.A.
...P.A. because the trial court properly pierced the corporate veil of Zuckerman "P.A." See Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A., 629 So.2d 217, 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) followed by Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A., 632 So.2d at 731. In sum, it is now the law of the case that both Zuck......
-
Fla. Laundry Servs., Inc. v. Sage Condo. Ass'n, Inc.
...required to be licensed in the State of Florida in order to be qualified to offer expert testimony. Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A., 629 So.2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) ; Lee County Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Lowe, 344 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).Finally, we affirm the final ......
-
Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Alex Hofrichter, P.A.
...individually liable because the trial court properly pierced the corporate veil of his P.A....." Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A., 629 So.2d 217, 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Accordingly, the October 1, 1992 order is reversed and the cause remanded for proceedings consistent......