Emco Tech Construction Corp. v. Pilavas
This text of 68 A.D.3d 918 (Emco Tech Construction Corp. v. Pilavas) 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
The defendants Anthony Pilavas and Stoneytown Development, LLC (hereinafter the appellants), failed to include the papers in support of, and in opposition to, the plaintiffs post-trial motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (b) in the record on appeal.
It is the appellants’ obligation to assemble a proper record on appeal (see CPLR 5526; 22 NYCRR 670.10-b [b]; Sebag v Narvaez, 60 AD3d 485 [2009]). The appellants’ reliance on CPLR 5528 is misplaced, as they did not utilize the appendix method when perfecting their appeal. In the present case, the record was inadequate because if failed to include all of the relevant documents that were before the Supreme Court (see Fernald v Vinci, 13 AD3d 333 [2004]; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Vargas, 288 AD2d 309 [2001]). Appeals that are not based on [919]*919a complete and proper record to enable this Court to render an informed decision on the merits must be dismissed (see Matter of Arcarian Sys. Ltd., 38 AD3d 649 [2007]; Garnerville Holding Co. v IMC Mgt., 299 AD2d 450 [2002]; Matison v County of Nassau, 290 AD2d 494 [2002]). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Miller and Roman, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
68 A.D.3d 918, 892 N.Y.2d 426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emco-tech-construction-corp-v-pilavas-nyappdiv-2009.