Svoboda v. Svoboda
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Sultan v. Sultan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- Garnerville Holding Co. v. IMC Management, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- Leichter-Kessler v. Kessler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Leichter-Kessler v. Kessler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Remy v. Mitchell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Rudick v. Rudick (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Cohen v. 1651 Carroll Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Lucadamo v. Bridge To Life, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Kuriakose v. Gray (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Lucadamo v. Bridge To Life, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Desmarat v. Basile (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- Zaikowski v. Monzon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Blydenburgh, J.), entered April 14, 1999, as (1) awarded custody of the parties’ two children to the defendant wife upon his consent, (2) awarded exclusive possession of the marital home to the defendant wife, (3) directed him to pay $160 per week in child support, and (4) provided for the equitable distribution of the remainder of marital property.
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the CPLR and the rules of this Court (see, CPLR 5528 [a]; 5529 [b], [c]; 22 NYCRR 670.10 [c]).
“An appellant who perfects an appeal by using the appendix method must file an appendix that contains all the relevant portions of the record in order to enable the court to render an informed decision on the merits of the appeal” (Patel v Patel, 270 AD2d 241, citing CPLR 5528 [a]; 5529 [b], [c]; 22 NYCRR 670.10 [c]; see also, Cross Westchester Dev. Corp. v Sleepy Hollow Motor Ct., 222 AD2d 644). The appellant failed to provide this Court with an appendix containing the relevant transcript pages of the trial on the issues of custody, child support, and equitable distribution. Florio, J. P., Luciano, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.