Banks v. City of New York
This text of Banks v. City of New York (Banks 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.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Banks v City of New York
2026 NY Slip Op 04170
July 1, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
George Banks, respondent,
v
City of New York, defendant, 29 Buffalo Avenue, LLC, appellant.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on July 1, 2026
2022-05102, (Index No. 504448/20)
Lara J. Genovesi, J.P.
Lillian Wan
Lourdes M. Ventura
Susan Quirk, JJ.
Moses Cowan, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.
Shulman & Hill, PLLC, New York, NY (Timothy Norton of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant 29 Buffalo Avenue, LLC, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gina Abadi, J.), entered May 31, 2022. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of that defendant's motion which was pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 to impose sanctions upon the plaintiff and the plaintiff's counsel, and for an award of costs, including attorneys' fees.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant 29 Buffalo Avenue, LLC (hereinafter the defendant), and another defendant, to recover damages for personal injuries. The defendant moved, inter alia, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 to impose sanctions upon the plaintiff and the plaintiff's counsel, and for an award of costs, including attorneys' fees (hereinafter the sanctions motion), based on the plaintiff's counsel's alleged misrepresentations in an attorney affirmation submitted in support of the plaintiff's prior motion for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant. The plaintiff opposed the defendant's motion. In an order entered May 31, 2022, the Supreme Court, among other things, denied that branch of the defendant's motion. The defendant appeals.
It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal (see Matter of Loreti v Lorcress Enters., Inc., 241 AD3d 935, 936; Bing v Myrtle 6, LLC, 227 AD3d 769, 770; Babayev v Kreitzman, 168 AD3d 655, 655). "Generally speaking, '[a]n appellant's record on appeal must contain all of the relevant papers before the Supreme Court'" (Babayev v Kreitzman, 168 AD3d at 655, quoting Gaffney v Gaffney, 29 AD3d 857, 857; see CPLR 5526). "Appeals that are not based upon complete and proper records must be dismissed" (Bing v Myrtle 6, LLC, 227 AD3d at 770 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Loreti v Lorcress Enters., Inc., 241 AD3d at 936).
Here, the defendant failed to include all relevant documents before the Supreme Court. Among other things, the record on appeal does not include the plaintiff's opposition papers submitted on the sanctions motion. Where, as here, meaningful appellate review of the court's determination is made virtually impossible because of the incomplete nature of the record submitted, dismissal of the appeal is the appropriate disposition (see Matter of Loreti v Lorcress Enters., Inc., 241 AD3d at 936; Bing v Myrtle 6, LLC, 227 AD3d at 770).
We decline the plaintiff's request to impose sanctions upon the defendant in connection with this appeal (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1).
GENOVESI, J.P., WAN, VENTURA and QUIRK, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Banks v. City of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banks-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2026.