Aguiar-Consolo v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aguiar-Consolo v. City of New York

113 A.D.3d 707, 978 N.Y.2d 855

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 22, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 113 A.D.3d 707 (Aguiar-Consolo v. City of New York) 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

Aguiar-Consolo v. City of New York, 113 A.D.3d 707, 978 N.Y.2d 855 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

“ ‘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’ ” (Grossman v Composto-Longhi, 96 AD3d 1000, 1001 [2012], quoting Gandolfi v Gandolfi, 66 AD3d 834, 835 [2009]; see Christian v Graham, 73 AD3d 676, 677 [2010]). “The appendix shall contain those portions of the record necessary to permit the court to fully consider the issues which will be raised by the appellant and the respondent” (22 NYCRR 670.10-b [c] [1]; see CPLR 5528 [a] [5]).

Here, the appellants seek review of an order which denied their joint motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a), inter alia, to set [708]*708aside a jury verdict on the issue of liability as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial and, therefore, the appendix should have included the full trial transcript (see Kruseck v Ross, 82 AD3d 939, 940 [2011]; Gerhardt v New York City Tr. Auth., 8 AD3d 427, 427-428 [2004]; Matison v County of Nassau, 290 AD2d 494, 495 [2002]; Lowry v Suffolk County Water Auth., 287 AD2d 551, 552 [2001]; see also CPLR 5526). Since, under the circumstances presented here, the appendix is inadequate to enable this Court to render an informed decision on the merits, the appeals must be dismissed (see Smith v Imagery Media, LLC, 95 AD3d 1204, 1205 [2012]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

“ ‘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’ ” (Grossman v Composto-Longhi, 96 AD3d 1000, 1001 [2012], quoting Gandolfi v Gandolfi, 66 AD3d 834, 835 [2009]; see Christian v Graham, 73 AD3d 676, 677 [2010]). “The appendix shall contain those portions of the record necessary to permit the court to fully consider the issues which will be raised by the appellant and the respondent” (22 NYCRR 670.10-b [c] [1]; see CPLR 5528 [a] [5]).

Here, the appellants seek review of an order which denied their joint motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a), inter alia, to set [708]*708aside a jury verdict on the issue of liability as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial and, therefore, the appendix should have included the full trial transcript (see Kruseck v Ross, 82 AD3d 939, 940 [2011]; Gerhardt v New York City Tr. Auth., 8 AD3d 427, 427-428 [2004]; Matison v County of Nassau, 290 AD2d 494, 495 [2002]; Lowry v Suffolk County Water Auth., 287 AD2d 551, 552 [2001]; see also CPLR 5526). Since, under the circumstances presented here, the appendix is inadequate to enable this Court to render an informed decision on the merits, the appeals must be dismissed (see Smith v Imagery Media, LLC, 95 AD3d 1204, 1205 [2012]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.3d 707, 978 N.Y.2d 855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aguiar-consolo-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack