Opinion
02-11-2015
Harriet BEIZER, appellant, v. Kathleen SWEDISH, et al., respondents, et al., defendant.
Victor M. Serby, Woodmere, N.Y., for appellant.
Victor M. Serby, Woodmere, N.Y., for appellant.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
Opinion In an action, inter alia, for an accounting, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Yablon, Ct.Atty.Ref.), dated March 20, 2012, which, upon an order of the same court dated February 10, 2012, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendants Kathleen Swedish and Frederick Swedish and against her.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
“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” (Gandolfi v. Gandolfi, 66 A.D.3d 834, 835, 886 N.Y.S.2d 617 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see NYCTL 1998–1 Trust v. Shahipour, 29 A.D.3d 965, 815 N.Y.S.2d 479 ; Patel v. Patel, 270 A.D.2d 241, 704 N.Y.S.2d 606 ). “The appendix shall contain 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 670.10–b [c][1]; see CPLR 5528[a] [5] ; Deshuk–Flores v. Flores, 116 A.D.3d 996, 984 N.Y.S.2d 600 ), including “material excerpts from transcripts of testimony or from papers in connection with a motion” (22 NYCRR 670.10–b [c][1][v] ), and critical exhibits (see 22 NYCRR 670.10–b [c][1][vi] ). Here, the plaintiff omitted from her appendix critical exhibits and material excerpts from transcripts of testimony. These omissions “inhibit the court's ability to render an informed decision on the merits of the appeal” (Matter of Embro v. Smith, 59 A.D.3d 542, 542, 872 N.Y.S.2d 291 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see 22 NYCRR 670.10.2[c][1]; CPLR 5528[a][5] ; Deshuk–Flores v. Flores, 116 A.D.3d at 996, 984 N.Y.S.2d 600 ; Gandolfi v.
Gandolfi, 66 A.D.3d at 835, 886 N.Y.S.2d 617 ; NYCTL 1998–1 Trust v. Shahipour, 29 A.D.3d at 965, 815 N.Y.S.2d 479 ; Patel v. Patel, 270 A.D.2d at 241, 704 N.Y.S.2d 606 ). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.