Daniels v. Donohue

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Daniels v. Donohue

137 A.D.3d 1072, 26 N.Y.S.3d 888

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

DecidedMarch 23, 2016

Docket2013-10750

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 137 A.D.3d 1072 (Daniels v. Donohue) 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

Daniels v. Donohue, 137 A.D.3d 1072, 26 N.Y.S.3d 888 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Landicino, J.), dated July 5, 2013, which granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the amended complaint and denied, as academic, her cross motion, inter alia, for leave to file a late notice of claim.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs, for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the CPLR and the rules of this Court (see CPLR 5528 [a] [5]; 22 NYCRR 670.10-b [c] [1]).

“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” (Matter of Passalacqua, 31 AD3d 648, 648 [2006] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Cohen v 1651 Carroll Realty Corp., 23 AD3d 603 [2005]; Lucadamo v Bridge To Life, Inc., 12 AD3d 422 [2004]). Here, the appellant failed to provide this Court with an appendix containing copies of the pleadings, the motion papers, and all of the affidavits and exhibits necessary to review the order appealed from. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.

Leventhal, J.P., Dickerson, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Landicino, J.), dated July 5, 2013, which granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the amended complaint and denied, as academic, her cross motion, inter alia, for leave to file a late notice of claim.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs, for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the CPLR and the rules of this Court (see CPLR 5528 [a] [5]; 22 NYCRR 670.10-b [c] [1]).

“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” (Matter of Passalacqua, 31 AD3d 648, 648 [2006] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Cohen v 1651 Carroll Realty Corp., 23 AD3d 603 [2005]; Lucadamo v Bridge To Life, Inc., 12 AD3d 422 [2004]). Here, the appellant failed to provide this Court with an appendix containing copies of the pleadings, the motion papers, and all of the affidavits and exhibits necessary to review the order appealed from. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.

Leventhal, J.P., Dickerson, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.3d 1072, 26 N.Y.S.3d 888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniels-v-donohue-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack