Gina C. v. Michael C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gina C. v. Michael C.

87 A.D.3d 917, 932 N.Y.2d 334

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

DecidedSeptember 22, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 87 A.D.3d 917 (Gina C. v. Michael C.) 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

Gina C. v. Michael C., 87 A.D.3d 917, 932 N.Y.2d 334 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Respondent failed to oppose or otherwise address the motion. Thus, the order was entered upon default and is not appealable (CPLR 5511; Matter of Anthony M.W.A. [Micah W.A.], 80 AD3d 476 [2011]; Matter of Jessenia Shanelle R. [Wanda Y.A.], 68 AD3d 558 [2009]). Respondent’s remedy was to move before Family Court to vacate his default and, if the motion were denied, to appeal from the order denying it (Matter of Shabazz v Blackmon, 274 AD2d 770, 771 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 945 [2000]).

In any event, this Court could not have conducted a meaningful review of this matter because respondent failed to meet his obligation to assemble a proper record on appeal, including all the transcripts of the proceedings (see Sebag v Narvaez, 60 AD3d 485 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 711 [2009]; Lynch v Consolidated Edison, Inc., 82 AD3d 442 [2011]). Concur — Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Respondent failed to oppose or otherwise address the motion. Thus, the order was entered upon default and is not appealable (CPLR 5511; Matter of Anthony M.W.A. [Micah W.A.], 80 AD3d 476 [2011]; Matter of Jessenia Shanelle R. [Wanda Y.A.], 68 AD3d 558 [2009]). Respondent’s remedy was to move before Family Court to vacate his default and, if the motion were denied, to appeal from the order denying it (Matter of Shabazz v Blackmon, 274 AD2d 770, 771 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 945 [2000]).

In any event, this Court could not have conducted a meaningful review of this matter because respondent failed to meet his obligation to assemble a proper record on appeal, including all the transcripts of the proceedings (see Sebag v Narvaez, 60 AD3d 485 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 711 [2009]; Lynch v Consolidated Edison, Inc., 82 AD3d 442 [2011]). Concur — Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.3d 917, 932 N.Y.2d 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gina-c-v-michael-c-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack