Matter of Meyer v. Oak Hill Condominium

Opinion

Matter of Meyer v Oak Hill Condominium

2026 NY Slip Op 05103

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.

In the Matter of Paul W. Meyer, Jr., appellant,

v

Oak Hill Condominium, respondent.

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

Decided on August 26, 2026

2024-07891, 2024-11015, (Index No. 64727/22)

Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, J.P.

Linda Christopher

Lourdes M. Ventura

Donna-Marie E. Golia, JJ.

Paul W. Meyer, Jr., Yonkers, NY, appellant pro se.

Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP, Purchase, NY (Leonardo D'Alessandro and Sarah Ziolkowski of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding, inter alia, to compel the production and inspection of certain books and records, the petitioner appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Charles D. Wood, J.), dated July 5, 2024, and (2) an order of the same court dated October 18, 2024. The order dated July 5, 2024, insofar as appealed from, denied the petition to the extent it sought to compel the production and inspection of books and records predating November 2021. The order dated October 18, 2024, insofar as appealed from, denied those branches of the petitioner's motion which were for leave to reargue so much of the petition as sought to compel the production and inspection of books and records predating November 2021 and to hold the respondent in contempt for failure to comply with certain provisions of the order dated July 5, 2024.

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated July 5, 2024, is dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order dated October 18, 2024, as denied that branch of the petitioner's motion which was for leave to reargue so much of the petition as sought to compel the production and inspection of books and records predating November 2021 is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated October 18, 2024, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

In November 2021, the petitioner acquired a unit at the respondent, Oak Hill Condominium (hereinafter Oak Hill). In September 2022, the petitioner commenced this proceeding, among other things, to compel the production and inspection of certain books and records of Oak Hill dating back to 2013 in accordance with Real Property Law §§ 339-q and 339-w and Oak Hill's bylaws, as well as a list of unit holders and their contact information. Oak Hill opposed the petition.

In an order dated July 5, 2024, after a framed-issue hearing, the Supreme Court directed Oak Hill to provide the petitioner with a current list of all shareholders and their contact information and denied the petition to the extent it sought to compel the production and inspection of Oak Hill's books and records predating November 2021.

The petitioner thereafter moved, inter alia, for leave to reargue so much of petition as sought to compel the production and inspection of Oak Hill's books and records predating November 2021 and to hold Oak Hill in contempt for failing to provide him with the unit owners' email addresses. In an order dated October 18, 2024, the Supreme Court, among other things, denied those branches of the petitioner's motion. The petitioner appeals.

CPLR 5526 provides, inter alia, that "[t]he record on appeal from an interlocutory judgment or any order shall consist of the notice of appeal, the judgment or order appealed from, the transcript, if any, the papers and other exhibits upon which the judgment or order was founded and any opinions in the case." "'It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal'" (Smith v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 244 AD3d 1011, 1011, quoting Ismail v Dowling, 240 AD3d 674, 675; see Trovato v Galaxy Sanitation Servs. of N.Y., Inc., 216 AD3d 700, 700). "Where omission of relevant documents from the record 'render[s] meaningful review of the court's order virtually impossible, dismissal of the appeal is the appropriate disposition'" (Sterling Trust Ltd. v Stern, 237 AD3d 1236, 1236, quoting Fitzpatrick v Affairs & Banquets Floral Servs., Inc., 227 AD3d 954, 955; see Trovato v Galaxy Sanitation Servs. of N.Y., Inc., 216 AD3d at 700).

Here, the petitioner failed to include in the record on appeal the transcript of the framed-issue hearing that was held before the Supreme Court to determine whether he had a good-faith basis to compel inspection of the records requested. The omission of the transcript inhibits this Court's ability to render an informed decision on the issues raised by the petitioner as it relates to the order dated July 5, 2024. Accordingly, the appeal from the order dated July 5, 2024, must be dismissed (see Castoria v Bracker, 236 AD3d 732, 733; Matter of Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. v Seng Jin Jang, 211 AD3d 736, 737).

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the petitioner's motion which was to hold Oak Hill in contempt for failure to comply with certain provisions of the order dated July 5, 2024 (see Matter of Reid v Williams, 234 AD3d 774, 775; Venables v Rovegno, 195 AD3d 879, 881). The court properly determined that Oak Hill complied with that order by providing the petitioner with the names and addresses of current unit owners (see Pomerance v McGrath, 143 AD3d 443, 444; Matter of Goldstein v Acropolis Gardens Realty Corp., 116 AD3d 776, 777).

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, VENTURA and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court