Bousson v. Bousson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bousson v. Bousson

136 A.D.3d 954, 25 N.Y.S.3d 607

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 2016

Docket2013-09723

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 136 A.D.3d 954 (Bousson v. Bousson) 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

Bousson v. Bousson, 136 A.D.3d 954, 25 N.Y.S.3d 607 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jerry Garguilo, J.), entered July 17, 2013. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, upon an order of that court dated December 2, 2011, denying Donald Bousson’s motion for an award of interim counsel fees in action Nos. 1 and 2, and upon a decision of that court dated February 22, 2013, made after a nonjury trial, failed to award him interim counsel fees and counsel fees in action Nos. 1 and 2.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the judgment as failed to award Donald Bousson counsel fees in action Nos. 1 and 2 is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal that contains all of the relevant papers; appeals that are not based upon complete and proper records must be dismissed (see Fernald v Vinci, 13 AD3d 333 [2004]; Gerhardt v New York City Tr. Auth., 8 AD3d 427 [2004]; Garnerville Holding Co. v IMC Mgt., 299 AD2d 450, 451 [2002]).

The appendix submitted by the appellant does not include the trial transcript which was the basis for the court’s *955 determination after trial, with respect to his motion for an award of counsel fees in action Nos. 1 and 2. Since the appellant has failed to submit a record that would enable this Court to render an informed decision on the merits, the appeal from that portion of the judgment must be dismissed (see Fernald v Vinci, 13 AD3d 333 [2004]; Garnerville Holding Co. v IMC Mgt., 299 AD2d at 451).

With respect to interim counsel fees, the Supreme Court, which properly took “the relative merit of the parties’ positions” into account (DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881 [1987]), providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion for an award of interim counsel fees in both actions (see Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; Freihofner v Freihofner, 39 AD3d 465 [2007]).

Balkin, J.P., Austin, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jerry Garguilo, J.), entered July 17, 2013. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, upon an order of that court dated December 2, 2011, denying Donald Bousson’s motion for an award of interim counsel fees in action Nos. 1 and 2, and upon a decision of that court dated February 22, 2013, made after a nonjury trial, failed to award him interim counsel fees and counsel fees in action Nos. 1 and 2.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the judgment as failed to award Donald Bousson counsel fees in action Nos. 1 and 2 is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal that contains all of the relevant papers; appeals that are not based upon complete and proper records must be dismissed (see Fernald v Vinci, 13 AD3d 333 [2004]; Gerhardt v New York City Tr. Auth., 8 AD3d 427 [2004]; Garnerville Holding Co. v IMC Mgt., 299 AD2d 450, 451 [2002]).

The appendix submitted by the appellant does not include the trial transcript which was the basis for the court’s *955 determination after trial, with respect to his motion for an award of counsel fees in action Nos. 1 and 2. Since the appellant has failed to submit a record that would enable this Court to render an informed decision on the merits, the appeal from that portion of the judgment must be dismissed (see Fernald v Vinci, 13 AD3d 333 [2004]; Garnerville Holding Co. v IMC Mgt., 299 AD2d at 451).

With respect to interim counsel fees, the Supreme Court, which properly took “the relative merit of the parties’ positions” into account (DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881 [1987]), providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion for an award of interim counsel fees in both actions (see Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; Freihofner v Freihofner, 39 AD3d 465 [2007]).

Balkin, J.P., Austin, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.3d 954, 25 N.Y.S.3d 607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bousson-v-bousson-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack