Akhilesh Krishna, Richmond Hill, N.Y., for appellant.
Peter T. Roach & Associates, P.C., Syosset, N.Y. (Michael C. Manniello of counsel), for respondent.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Anatole Hounnou appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), entered March 11, 2015, which denied his motion to vacate his default in answering the complaint, for leave to serve a late answer, and to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court, entered November 3, 2014.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.
" ‘It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal’ " (Blaylock v. State of New York, 118 A.D.3d 836, 836, 987 N.Y.S.2d 245, quoting Matison v. County of Nassau, 290 A.D.2d 494, 495, 736 N.Y.S.2d 115 ; see Milowski v. Michael, 69 A.D.3d 909, 909, 892 N.Y.S.2d 862 ). "An appellant's record on appeal must contain all the relevant papers before the Supreme Court" (Gaffney v. Gaffney, 29 A.D.3d 857, 857, 815 N.Y.S.2d 259 ; see CPLR 5526 ). "Appeals that are not based upon complete and proper records must be dismissed" (Garnerville Holding Co. v. IMC Mgt., 299 A.D.2d 450, 450, 749 N.Y.S.2d 892 ; see Ghatani v. AGH Realty, LLC, 136 A.D.3d 744, 24 N.Y.S.3d 535 ; Fernald v. Vinci, 13 A.D.3d 333, 334, 786 N.Y.S.2d 211 ).Here, the record on appeal is inadequate. The appellant has failed to include the order to show cause by which he moved to vacate his default in answering the complaint, for leave to serve a late answer, and to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale entered November 3, 2014, or any affirmations or affidavits submitted in support of the motion and any exhibits attached thereto. The omission of these documents from the record renders any meaningful appellate review of the Supreme Court's order virtually impossible (see CPLR 5526 ; Aurora Indus., Inc. v. Halwani, 102 A.D.3d 900, 901, 958 N.Y.S.2d 479 ; Barretti v. Solucorp Indus., Ltd., 102 A.D.3d 642, 643, 956 N.Y.S.2d 900 ; Coello v. Gonzalez, 96 A.D.3d 707, 707–708, 945 N.Y.S.2d 575 ; Briscoe v. White, 34 A.D.3d 712, 714, 826 N.Y.S.2d 109 ). Accordingly, dismissal of the appeal from the order is the appropriate disposition (see Barretti v. Solucorp Indus., Ltd., 102 A.D.3d at 643, 956 N.Y.S.2d 900 ).