J. Sharon L. Rollins, the plaintiff below, appeals from a final judgment in her favor and a subsequent order of the trial court denying her motion for additur and, alternatively, for new trial. We affirm, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial, as the alleged errors upon which the motion was premised are either unmeritorious or were not properly preserved. See Roth v. Cohen, 941 So.2d 496, 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448
holding that to preserve an issue for appellate review the specific legal argument or ground upon which it is based must be presented to the trial court holding that an issue must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved holding that issues must be briefed to be preserved on appeal holding that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal holding that the point on appeal and the objection in the trial court must be the same in order for it to be preserved for appeal