From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Melville v. Melville

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 22, 1968
29 A.D.2d 679 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968)

Opinion

January 22, 1968


In an action for separation, defendant husband appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated November 2, 1966, dismissing the complaint after a nonjury trial, as awarded plaintiff permanent alimony and an additional counsel fee; and plaintiff cross-appeals from the same judgment. Cross appeal dismissed, with $30 costs and disbursements, unless plaintiff file and serves a proper appendix within 30 days after entry of the order hereon. Determination of defendant's appeal will be held in abeyance in the meantime. The appendix submitted by plaintiff is patently insufficient for the purpose of reviewing the issues raised by her. It is clearly impossible to review the weight of the evidence without an examination of all the pertinent proof; and plaintiff's appendix is completely wanting in that regard (see, E.P. Reynolds, Inc. v. Nager Elec. Co., 17 N.Y.2d 51; Pollack v. Pollack, 25 A.D.2d 756; CPLR 5528; Appellate Division Rules, Second Dept., part 1, rule XVI). Brennan, Acting P.J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Melville v. Melville

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 22, 1968
29 A.D.2d 679 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968)
Case details for

Melville v. Melville

Case Details

Full title:BARBARA MELVILLE, Respondent, v. FRANK MELVILLE, Appellant

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

Date published: Jan 22, 1968

Citations

29 A.D.2d 679 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968)

Citing Cases

Wexler v. South Brooklyn Savings Bank

The appendix submitted on this appeal is patently insufficient for the purpose of passing on the contention…

Rubin v. Rubin

The raising of such contentions requires the use of an extensive appendix. The appendix submitted by…