AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

GARNERVILLE HOLDING COMPANY, INC., RESPONDENT, v. IMC MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS, LAWRENCE PESKA, APPELLANT.

DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The judgment appealed from was rendered after a nonjury trial. The appellant, however, has failed to provide this court with a copy of the transcript of the trial (see 22 NYCRR 670.9[b][1]).

"It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal" (Sultan v. Sultan, 295 A.D.2d 498; Matison v. County of Nassau, 290 A.D.2d 494; Singh v. Getty Petroleum Corp., 275 A.D.2d 740) . An appellant's record on appeal "must contain all of the relevant papers before the Supreme Court, including the transcript, if any, of the proceedings" (Whyte v. Destra, 298 A.D.2d 384 [2d Dept, Oct. 7, 2002]; see Desmarat v. Basile, 288 A.D.2d 336; Matison v. County of Nassau, supra; Lowry v. Suffolk Co. Water Auth., 287 A.D.2d 551). An appellant's failure to provide a necessary transcript or pertinent exhibits inhibits the court's ability to render an informed decision on the merits of the appeal (Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Vargas, 288 A.D.2d 309; Riverso v. Allstate Ins. Co., 282 A.D.2d 663; Svoboda v. Svoboda, 275 A.D.2d 742). Appeals that are not based upon complete and proper records must be dismissed (see Matison v. County of Nassau, supra; Desmarat v. Basile, supra; Lowry v. Suffolk Co. Water Auth., supra; Riverso v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra; Matter of Zaikowski v. Monzon, 277 A.D.2d 459; Singh v. Getty Petroleum Corp., supra; Svoboda v. Svoboda, supra).

Without a trial transcript, we are unable to determine whether the Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff damages in excess of those recoverable from the breach in controversy, as opposed to the period of an earlier breach that was the subject of prior litigation. Additionally, we cannot determine whether the Supreme Court properly pierced the corporate veil of any of the corporate defendants to impose liability against the individual defendant. Thus, this appeal must be dismissed.

RITTER, J.P., FLORIO, S. MILLER and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

GARNERVILLE HOLDING CO. v. IMC MANAGEMENT
(Nov 18, 2002)