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 · Decided November 8, 2004

12 A.D.3d 422; 783 N.Y.S.2d 837; 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13343

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Ravasio v. La Pata (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Daniels v. Donohue (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Love v. Rockwell's International Enterprises, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Utica Mutual Insurance v. Swim Tech Pool Services Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Town of Brookhaven v. Mascia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
NYCTL 1998-1 Trust v. Shahipour (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
In re the Estate of Passalacqua (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Cohen v. 1651 Carroll Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)

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, inter alia, to recover misappropriated corporate funds, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated February 20, 2003, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing, (2) an order of the same court dated April 1, 2003, which denied its motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 4401, and (3) an order of the same court dated May 9, 2003, which, inter alia, denied its cross motion for the imposition of a sanction against the plaintiff.

Ordered that the appeals are dismissed, with one bill of costs, 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-b [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’ ” (Svoboda v Svoboda, 275 AD2d 742 [2000], quoting Patel v Patel, 270 AD2d 241 [2000]). The appellant failed to provide this Court with an appendix containing copies of the motion papers, affidavits, and transcripts that are relevant to the orders appealed from. Santucci, J.P., Schmidt, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.