Magee v. Magee

Opinion

Magee v Magee

2026 NY Slip Op 05093

August 26, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Julie A. Magee, appellant,

v

Jonathan Magee, respondent.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on August 26, 2026

2024-00496, (Index No. 35982/20)

Colleen D. Duffy, J.P.

Linda Christopher

Barry E. Warhit

Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.

Tricia S. Lindsay, Mt. Vernon, NY, for appellant.

Rosenblatt Warren LLP, New City, NY (Alen Rosenblatt and David Warren of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherri L. Eisenpress, J.), dated December 4, 2023. The judgment of divorce, insofar as appealed from, upon a decision of the same court also dated December 4, 2023, made after a nonjury trial, (1) imputed annual income to the defendant in the amount of only $175,000, (2) awarded the plaintiff child support in the amount of only $2,139.38 per month, (3) awarded the plaintiff maintenance in the amount of only $907.19 per month for a total of 33 months commencing June 1, 2022, (4) denied the plaintiff's application for an award of attorney's fees, and (5) directed the plaintiff to pay 50% of the outstanding balance due to the court-appointed neutral financial evaluator.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff's requests for further discovery and for new findings of fact by a different Justice on the ground that the Supreme Court failed to disclose certain conflicts of interest (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1][e]) are improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see CPLR 5501[a], [c]; Matter of Pontillo v Pearce, 243 AD3d 797, 798-799). Consideration of such issues is generally inappropriate inasmuch as it would deprive the other party of any opportunity to develop a factual record to challenge the new assertion (see Wells Fargo Bank v Islam, 174 AD3d 670, 671-672), and the alleged undisclosed conflicts of interest do not present pure questions of law appearing on the face of the record which could not have been avoided if raised at the proper juncture (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Campbell, 187 AD3d 714, 714).

Moreover, 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 (see Almazon v Town of Oyster Bay, 241 AD3d 1225, 1226). An appendix is required to include "those portions of the record necessary to permit the court to fully consider the issues which will be raised by the appellant and the respondent" (22 NYCRR § 1250.7[d][1]; see Almazon v Town of Oyster Bay, 241 AD3d at 1226). This Court is not obligated to determine an issue where the appendix submitted to it is inadequate to permit review (see Almazon v Town of Oyster Bay, 241 AD3d at 1226).

Here, the appendix filed by the plaintiff failed to include, among other things, the trial exhibits, the parties' statements of net worth, and the parties' applications for fee awards. Since these omissions inhibit this Court's ability to render an informed decision on the merits of the appeal, dismissal of the appeal is warranted (see id.; Schwartz v Schwartz, 73 AD3d 1156, 1156-1157).

DUFFY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court