From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martin v. Dominick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 20, 2001
280 A.D.2d 586 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted January 18, 2001

February 20, 2001.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages pursuant to Real Property Law §§ 235-f(1) and 223-b(1)(b), the plaintiff appeals from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (LaCava, J.), entered July 22, 1999 which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against him dismissing the complaint, and (2) a judgment of the same court entered August 16, 1999, which is in favor of the defendants and against him awarding them costs, disbursements, and additional allowances in the sum of $720.

George Martin, Hopewell Junction, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Thomas P. Halley, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., for respondents.

Before: BRACKEN, ACTING P.J., GOLDSTEIN, H. MILLER and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeals are dismissed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellant.

The plaintiff failed to order and settle the transcript of the trial as required by CPLR 5525(a). The record submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient for the purpose of reviewing the issues he raised and, therefore, the appeal must be dismissed (see, Meier v. Meier, 204 A.D.2d 283; Matter of Nicoll, 191 A.D.2d 444, 446).

To the extent that the appellant seeks to raise issues regarding two orders of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated September 29, 1999, and November 1, 1999, respectively, his claims are not properly before this court as he did not take an appeal from either order (see, CPLR 5501[a], 5515).


Summaries of

Martin v. Dominick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 20, 2001
280 A.D.2d 586 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Martin v. Dominick

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE MARTIN, APPELLANT, v. GEORGE DOMINICK, ET AL., RESPONDENTS

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 20, 2001

Citations

280 A.D.2d 586 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
720 N.Y.S.2d 811

Citing Cases

Smith v. M.V. Woods Construction Co.

We note that defendant did not move for a directed verdict ( see CPLR 4401) on the ground that the evidence…

Ruane-Wilkens v. New York

Therefore, she failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she was engaged in an activity which…