Killian v. Heiman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Killian v. Heiman

105 A.D.3d 1459, 963 N.Y.S.2d 918

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

DecidedApril 26, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 105 A.D.3d 1459 (Killian v. Heiman) 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

Killian v. Heiman, 105 A.D.3d 1459, 963 N.Y.S.2d 918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered August 17, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of defendant to dismiss the amended complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order that, inter alia, denied his motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice on the ground that one of the plaintiffs failed to appear at trial for a scheduled cross-examination. Defendant’s contention that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying that motion involves matters outside the record on appeal. We therefore are unable to determine the merits of defendant’s [1460]*1460contention, and defendant, “as the appellant, . . . must suffer the consequences” of submitting an incomplete record (Matter of Santoshia L., 202 AD2d 1027, 1028 [1994]; see Matter of Rodriguez v Ward, 43 AD3d 640, 641 [2007]).

Present—Scudder, EJ., Peradotto, Sconiers, Valentino and Martoche, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered August 17, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of defendant to dismiss the amended complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order that, inter alia, denied his motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice on the ground that one of the plaintiffs failed to appear at trial for a scheduled cross-examination. Defendant’s contention that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying that motion involves matters outside the record on appeal. We therefore are unable to determine the merits of defendant’s [1460]*1460contention, and defendant, “as the appellant, . . . must suffer the consequences” of submitting an incomplete record (Matter of Santoshia L., 202 AD2d 1027, 1028 [1994]; see Matter of Rodriguez v Ward, 43 AD3d 640, 641 [2007]).

Present—Scudder, EJ., Peradotto, Sconiers, Valentino and Martoche, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.3d 1459, 963 N.Y.S.2d 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/killian-v-heiman-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack