Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Hounnou

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Hounnou

2017 NY Slip Op 958, 147 A.D.3d 814, 47 N.Y.S.3d 105

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 2017

Docket2015-05884

StatusPublished

Cited by253 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 958 (Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Hounnou) 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

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Hounnou, 2017 NY Slip Op 958, 147 A.D.3d 814, 47 N.Y.S.3d 105 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Anatole Hounnou appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), entered March 11, 2015, which denied his motion to vacate his default in answering the complaint, for leave to serve a late answer, and to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court, entered November 3, 2014.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

“ ‘It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal’ ” (Blaylock v State of New York, 118 AD3d 836, 836 [2014], quoting Matison v County of Nassau, 290 AD2d 494, 495 [2002]; see Milowski v Michael, 69 AD3d 909, 909 [2010]). “An appellant’s record on appeal must contain all of the relevant papers before the Supreme Court” (Gaffney v Gaffney, 29 AD3d 857, 857 [2006]; see CPLR 5526). “Appeals that are not based upon complete and proper records must be dismissed” (Garnerville Holding Co. v IMC Mgt., 299 AD2d 450, 450 [2002]; see Ghatani v AGH Realty, LLC, 136 AD3d 744 [2016]; Fernald v Vinci, 13 AD3d 333, 334 [2004]).

*815 Here, the record on appeal is inadequate. The appellant has failed to include the order to show cause by which he moved to vacate his default in answering the complaint, for leave to serve a late answer, and to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale entered November 3, 2014, or any affirmations or affidavits submitted in support of the motion and any exhibits attached thereto. The omission of these documents from the record renders any meaningful appellate review of the Supreme Court’s order virtually impossible (see CPLR 5526; Aurora Indus., Inc. v Halwani, 102 AD3d 900, 901 [2013]; Barretti v Solucorp Indus., Ltd., 102 AD3d 642, 643 [2013]; Coello v Gonzalez, 96 AD3d 707, 707-708 [2012]; Briscoe v White, 34 AD3d 712, 714 [2006]). Accordingly, dismissal of the appeal from the order is the appropriate disposition (see Barretti v Solucorp Indus., Ltd., 102 AD3d at 643).

Chambers, J.P., Austin, Hinds-Radix and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Anatole Hounnou appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), entered March 11, 2015, which denied his motion to vacate his default in answering the complaint, for leave to serve a late answer, and to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court, entered November 3, 2014.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

“ ‘It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal’ ” (Blaylock v State of New York, 118 AD3d 836, 836 [2014], quoting Matison v County of Nassau, 290 AD2d 494, 495 [2002]; see Milowski v Michael, 69 AD3d 909, 909 [2010]). “An appellant’s record on appeal must contain all of the relevant papers before the Supreme Court” (Gaffney v Gaffney, 29 AD3d 857, 857 [2006]; see CPLR 5526). “Appeals that are not based upon complete and proper records must be dismissed” (Garnerville Holding Co. v IMC Mgt., 299 AD2d 450, 450 [2002]; see Ghatani v AGH Realty, LLC, 136 AD3d 744 [2016]; Fernald v Vinci, 13 AD3d 333, 334 [2004]).

*815 Here, the record on appeal is inadequate. The appellant has failed to include the order to show cause by which he moved to vacate his default in answering the complaint, for leave to serve a late answer, and to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale entered November 3, 2014, or any affirmations or affidavits submitted in support of the motion and any exhibits attached thereto. The omission of these documents from the record renders any meaningful appellate review of the Supreme Court’s order virtually impossible (see CPLR 5526; Aurora Indus., Inc. v Halwani, 102 AD3d 900, 901 [2013]; Barretti v Solucorp Indus., Ltd., 102 AD3d 642, 643 [2013]; Coello v Gonzalez, 96 AD3d 707, 707-708 [2012]; Briscoe v White, 34 AD3d 712, 714 [2006]). Accordingly, dismissal of the appeal from the order is the appropriate disposition (see Barretti v Solucorp Indus., Ltd., 102 AD3d at 643).

Chambers, J.P., Austin, Hinds-Radix and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 958, 147 A.D.3d 814, 47 N.Y.S.3d 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deutsche-bank-national-trust-co-v-hounnou-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack