Katz v. Dotan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Katz v. Dotan

90 A.D.3d 661, 933 N.Y.2d 870

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

DecidedDecember 6, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 90 A.D.3d 661 (Katz v. Dotan) 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

Katz v. Dotan, 90 A.D.3d 661, 933 N.Y.2d 870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal (see Family Ct Act § 1118; CELR 5525 [a]; Matter of Remy v Mitchell, 60 AD3d 860 [2009]). The failure to provide necessary transcripts inhibits the Court’s ability to render an informed decision on the merits of the appeal (see Matter of [662]*662Rudick v Rudick, 16 AD3d 514 [2005]). In this case, the full record of the proceedings in the Family Court has not been transcribed (see Matter of Davis v Pegues, 266 AD2d 288 [1999]; Matter of Baiko v Baiko, 141 AD2d 635 [1988]).

This appeal must be dismissed, as the papers provided were patently insufficient for the purpose of reviewing the issues the father has raised (see Matter of Remy v Mitchell, 60 AD3d at 860; Matter of Zullo v Hom, 22 AD3d 675, 676 [2005]; Matter of Rudick v Rudick, 16 AD3d at 514). Rivera, J.E, Leventhal, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal (see Family Ct Act § 1118; CELR 5525 [a]; Matter of Remy v Mitchell, 60 AD3d 860 [2009]). The failure to provide necessary transcripts inhibits the Court’s ability to render an informed decision on the merits of the appeal (see Matter of [662]*662Rudick v Rudick, 16 AD3d 514 [2005]). In this case, the full record of the proceedings in the Family Court has not been transcribed (see Matter of Davis v Pegues, 266 AD2d 288 [1999]; Matter of Baiko v Baiko, 141 AD2d 635 [1988]).

This appeal must be dismissed, as the papers provided were patently insufficient for the purpose of reviewing the issues the father has raised (see Matter of Remy v Mitchell, 60 AD3d at 860; Matter of Zullo v Hom, 22 AD3d 675, 676 [2005]; Matter of Rudick v Rudick, 16 AD3d at 514). Rivera, J.E, Leventhal, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.3d 661, 933 N.Y.2d 870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katz-v-dotan-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack