
    IDY CORPORATION d/b/a Crazy Horse Saloon, Appellant, v. Dirk ENGELS, Appellee.
    No. 83-329.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Feb. 21, 1984.
    
      Kathleen V. McCarthy, Miami, for appellant.
    Greenfield & Duval and Leo Greenfield, North Miami, for appellee.
    Before HENDRY, NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal taken by IDY Corporation d/b/a Crazy Horse Saloon, from a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of appellee, Dirk Engels, and an order denying appellant’s motion for a new trial. This appeal followed.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying the motion for new trial because of the accumulative prejudice of questions posed by plaintiff’s counsel.

We have carefully considered appellant’s contention in the light of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that no reversible error has been shown. See Castellanos v. Hialeah-Miami Springs First State Bank, 330 So.2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 341 So.2d 1080 (Fla.1976); Byrd v. Felder, 197 So.2d 554 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 201 So.2d 894 (Fla.1967).

Affirmed.

DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge,

concurring.

I think the stated reason for affirmance should be that a party, such as the appellant here, which expressly declines to move for a mistrial and asks only for curative instructions and admonitions cannot be heard to complain of the trial court’s refusal to grant it a new trial on the asserted ground that it was prejudiced by improper questions, remarks and conduct of opposing trial counsel. Sears Roebuck & Company v. Jackson, 433 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Earl Hollis, Inc. v. Fraser Mortgage Company, 403 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). See Walt Disney World Co. v. Althouse, 427 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).  