Schwartz v. Schwartz
Opinion of the Court
In an action for divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hinds-Radix, J.), dated September 30, 2009, which denied his motion, made at the close of the plaintiffs case pursuant to CPLR 4401, for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
“It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal, which must include any relevant transcripts of proceedings before the Supreme Court” (Nakyeoung Seoung v Vicuna, 38 AD3d 734, 735 [2007]; see CPLR 5525 [a]; 5526; Gaffney v Gaffney, 29 AD3d 857 [2006]; Fernald v Vinci, 13 AD3d 333 [2004]; Gerhardt v New York City Tr. Auth., 8 AD3d 427, 427 [2004]; Garnerville Holding Co. v IMC Mgt., 299 AD2d 450 [2002]). “The record must contain all of the relevant papers that were before the Supreme Court, including the transcript, if any, of the proceedings” (Matison v County of Nassau, 290 AD2d 494, 495 [2002]; see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Vargas, 288 AD2d 309, 310 [2001]; Desmarat v Basile, 288 AD2d 336, 337 [2001]; Lowry v Suffolk County Water Auth., 287 AD2d 551, 552 [2001]). Here, the defendant appeals from the Supreme Court’s denial of his motion pursuant to CPLR 4401, made at the close
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.