2001 Real Estate Space Catalyst, Inc. v. Campeau Corp. (U.S.), Inc.

148 A.D.2d 315, 538 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2352
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 7, 1989
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 148 A.D.2d 315 (2001 Real Estate Space Catalyst, Inc. v. Campeau Corp. (U.S.), Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
2001 Real Estate Space Catalyst, Inc. v. Campeau Corp. (U.S.), Inc., 148 A.D.2d 315, 538 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2352 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on February 9, 1988, which granted the motion by third-party plaintiff for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 and denied the cross motion by third-party defendant for summary judgment, is unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

[316]*316The Supreme Court properly granted the motion by third-party plaintiff for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 and denied the cross motion by third-party defendant for the same relief. However, it should be noted that in connection with its appeal, third-party defendant prepared a record which selectively failed to include many motion papers and supporting exhibits which had been submitted by the opposing party in the Supreme Court and were an integral part of the record before that court. In that regard, CPLR 5526 provides that the "record on appeal from an interlocutory judgment or any order shall consist of the notice of appeal, the judgment or order appealed from, the transcript, if any, the papers and other exhibits upon which the judgment or order was founded and any opinions in the case” (emphasis added). The omission from the appeal record by third-party defendant of much of the record before the Supreme Court, specifically documents filed by third-party plaintiff, is not only in violation of the statute but is highly unprofessional as well. It appears that third-party defendant was only interested in having this court examine fully its own arguments and not those presented by the other side. Accordingly, third-party plaintiff was compelled to submit its own extensive supplemental record on appeal, which is nearly three times the length of the original record on appeal. The failure by third-party defendant to file a full and complete record can only be deplored. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Milonas, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Matter of Fried v. Polacco
2021 NY Slip Op 00011 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Guthorn v. Village of Saranac Lake
2019 NY Slip Op 1469 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Brill Physical Therapy, P.C. v. Leaf
82 A.D.3d 413 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Boyar v. Goodman
202 A.D.2d 541 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Podhorecki v. Lauer's Furniture Stores, Inc.
184 A.D.2d 1066 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Freed v. Hill
176 A.D.2d 1065 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
148 A.D.2d 315, 538 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/2001-real-estate-space-catalyst-inc-v-campeau-corp-us-inc-nyappdiv-1989.