Lucadamo v. Bridge To Life, Inc.

23 A.D.3d 627, 804 N.Y.S.2d 273
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Lucadamo v. Bridge To Life, Inc.. Read the opinion of the Court — 12 A.D.3d 422

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover misappropriated corporate funds, the defendant appeals from four orders of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated December 17, 2003, January 23, 2004, January 23, 2004, and March 31, 2004, respectively, and a judgment of the same court entered March 12, 2004.

Ordered that the appeals are dismissed, with costs, for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the CFLR and the rules [628]*628of this Court (see CPLR 5528 [a]; 5529 [b], [c]; 22 NYCRR 670.10-b [c]).

“ ‘ “An appellant who perfects an appeal by using the appendix method must file an appendix that contains all the relevant portions of the record in order to enable the court to render an informed decision on the merits of the appeal” ’ ” (Lucadamo v Bridge To Life, Inc., 12 AD3d 422, 422 [2004], quoting Svoboda v Svoboda, 275 AD2d 742, 742 [2000]; see Patel v Patel, 270 AD2d 241 [2000]). The appellant failed to provide this Court with an appendix containing copies of the motion papers, affidavits, and transcripts that are relevant to the orders and judgment appealed from. H. Miller, J.P., Luciano, Dillon and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

Lucadamo v. Bridge To Life, Inc., 23 A.D.3d 627, 804 N.Y.S.2d 273 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

23 A.D.3d 627 (Lucadamo v. Bridge To Life, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Patel v. Patel
270 A.D.2d 241 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Svoboda v. Svoboda
275 A.D.2d 742 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)