on a special project or not, determination of which facts are necessary prerequisites to deciding whether Mr. Hart was a “leased worker” at the time of his accident. Accordingly, summary judgment cannot be granted on this issue. In summary, while Plaintiffs present compelling evidence that Mr. Hart was a “temporary” worker, Defendants present equally compelling evidence that Mr. Hart was a “leased” worker. In order to make a final determination about whether Mr. Hart was a temporary or a leased worker at the time of his accident, the Court will to have to “adjudge the credibility of the witnesses and weigh the evidence” presented, which it is not permitted to do on a motion for summary judgment. See Pita v. State Street Bank and Trust Co., 666 So.2d 268, 268 (Fla.3d Dist.Ct.App.1996) (<HOLDING>). Thus, having viewed the evidence in the light
holding that it is trial courts function to evaluate witness credibility and weigh conflicting evidence holding that on a motion for summary judgment it is settled that a trial court is not permitted to weigh material conflicting evidence or pass upon the credibility of the witnesses holding that in resolving sufficiency of evidence appeals court does not weigh evidence or review credibility of witnesses holding that a successor judge may consider a motion for new trial in a case tried to the court where she is not required to weigh conflicting evidence or pass upon the credibility of witnesses but can resolve such issues  upon evidence which is not materially in conflict holding that it is function of trial court to judge witnesses credibility and to weigh conflicting evidence