Kenan v. Levine & Blit, PLLC

136 A.D.3d 554, 25 N.Y.S.3d 195
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 18, 2016
Docket274 111880/11
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 136 A.D.3d 554 (Kenan v. Levine & Blit, PLLC) 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
Kenan v. Levine & Blit, PLLC, 136 A.D.3d 554, 25 N.Y.S.3d 195 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered April 14, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant Levine & Blit, PLLC’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against individual defendants Matthew J. Blit, Esq. and Les J. Levine, *555 Esq., denied plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment, and directed corporate defendant Levine & Blit, PLLC to serve an answer to the complaint within twenty days of service of the order with notice of entry, unanimously dismissed, without costs, for failure to perfect the appeal in accordance with the CPLR and the rules of this Court.

The appendix submitted on this appeal is patently insufficient for the purpose of passing on the contentions raised in the respective briefs, because plaintiff failed to submit the underlying papers including his motion for default judgement, defendant’s cross motion and J.H.O. Gammerman’s report issued after the February 3, 2014 traverse hearing (see Feigelson v Allstate Ins. Co., 36 AD2d 929 [1st Dept 1971]; 22 NYCRR 670.10-b [c] [1]; CPLR 5528 [a]).

Although respondent states in its brief that the appendix was inadequate and it would seek printing costs, plaintiff did not supplement his appendix, even though he is represented by appellate counsel. However, respondent is not entitled to its costs for supplementing the appendix, the supplement failed to cure the deficiencies in the appendix since it did not include J.H.O. Gammerman’s report, which was considered by the motion court prior to issuing the order appealed.

Concur— Renwick, J.P, Andrias, Saxe and Richter, JJ.

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

Related

Djeddah v. Djeddah
2019 NY Slip Op 4272 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Davis v. Prestige Mgt. Inc.
2018 NY Slip Op 8445 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Anthony S. v. Monique T.B.
2017 NY Slip Op 2365 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Trimarco v. Data Treasury Corp.
2017 NY Slip Op 503 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
136 A.D.3d 554, 25 N.Y.S.3d 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenan-v-levine-blit-pllc-nyappdiv-2016.