Rudick v. Rudick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rudick v. Rudick

16 A.D.3d 514, 791 N.Y.S.2d 170, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2586

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

DecidedMarch 14, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 514 (Rudick v. Rudick) 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

Rudick v. Rudick, 16 A.D.3d 514, 791 N.Y.S.2d 170, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2586 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Blass, J), entered on July 7, 2004, which denied her objections to an order of the same Court (Buetow, S.M.), dated May 3, 2004, which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the father’s application for a downward modification of his maintenance obligation.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal (see Family Ct Act § 1118; CPLR 5525 [a]; Matter of Zaikowski v Monzon, 277 AD2d 459 [2000]; Matter of Baiko v Baiko, 141 AD2d 635 [1988]). The failure to provide necessary transcripts inhibits the court’s ability to render an informed decision on the merits of the appeal (see Svoboda v Svoboda, 275 AD2d 742 [2000]). In this proceeding, the appellant failed to include the transcripts of the support hearing. Since the papers provided were patently insufficient for the purpose of reviewing the issues she raised, this appeal must be dismissed (see Sultan v Sultan, 295 AD2d 498 [2002]; Matter of Meier v Meier, 204 AD2d 328 [1994]). H. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Blass, J), entered on July 7, 2004, which denied her objections to an order of the same Court (Buetow, S.M.), dated May 3, 2004, which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the father’s application for a downward modification of his maintenance obligation.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal (see Family Ct Act § 1118; CPLR 5525 [a]; Matter of Zaikowski v Monzon, 277 AD2d 459 [2000]; Matter of Baiko v Baiko, 141 AD2d 635 [1988]). The failure to provide necessary transcripts inhibits the court’s ability to render an informed decision on the merits of the appeal (see Svoboda v Svoboda, 275 AD2d 742 [2000]). In this proceeding, the appellant failed to include the transcripts of the support hearing. Since the papers provided were patently insufficient for the purpose of reviewing the issues she raised, this appeal must be dismissed (see Sultan v Sultan, 295 AD2d 498 [2002]; Matter of Meier v Meier, 204 AD2d 328 [1994]). H. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 514, 791 N.Y.S.2d 170, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rudick-v-rudick-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack