Opinion
2015–02113 Index No. 25849/10
01-24-2018
JOYCE LAN ZHEN ZHAO, et al., respondents, v. NA CHAN, et al., appellants, et al., defendants.
Goldberg & Dubin, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Stacey Van Malden of counsel), for appellants. Vincent S. Wong, New York, NY, for respondents.
Goldberg & Dubin, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Stacey Van Malden of counsel), for appellants.
Vincent S. Wong, New York, NY, for respondents.
L. PRISCILLA HALL, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SANDRA L. SGROI, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERAppeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Richard N. Allman, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated December 1, 2014. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants Na Chan and Tak Ching Chan in the total principal sum of $882,650.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.
The plaintiffs commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 ( 15 USC § 77e et seq. ). On December 1, 2014, after a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court issued a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants Na Chan and Tak Ching Chan (hereinafter together the defendants). The defendants appeal from the judgment." ‘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’ " ( Swift v. Broadway Neon Sign Corp., 137 A.D.3d 893, 893, 26 N.Y.S.3d 482, quoting NYCTL 1998–1 Trust v. Shahipour, 29 A.D.3d 965, 965, 815 N.Y.S.2d 479 ). "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, including material excerpts from transcripts of testimony" ( Beizer v. Swedish, 125 A.D.3d 703, 703, 4 N.Y.S.3d 58 [internal quotation marks omitted). " ‘An appellate court should not be subjected to the task of untangling and mastering the facts from an inadequate and incoherent appendix’ " ( Diana v. DeLisa, 151 A.D.3d 806, 808–809, 58 N.Y.S.3d 54, quoting Lo Gerfo v. Lo Gerfo, 30 A.D.2d 156, 157, 290 N.Y.S.2d 1005 ). Here, since the appendix, which contained only limited portions of the trial transcripts, is inadequate to enable this Court to render an informed decision on the merits, the appeal must be dismissed (see Aguiar–Consolo v. City of New York, 113 A.D.3d 707, 708, 978 N.Y.S.2d 855 ).
HALL, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.