From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Francesco v. Francesco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 15, 1965
23 A.D.2d 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)

Opinion

April 15, 1965


Order of commitment, entered on August 19, 1964, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The papers on appeal contain two notices of appeal: the first, from the order of August 19, 1964 aforesaid; the second, apparently abandoned, from an order dated August 12, 1964, not in the record on appeal. The order of August 19, 1964 is predicated on a hearing of August 12, 1964, the minutes of which are not before us. The underlying order of protection dated July 23, 1964 is grounded on a hearing of that day, the minutes of which are not part of the record on appeal. It is impossible to pass on the merits of the appeal. Appellant having submitted the appeal on an incomplete and insufficient record must abide the consequences. (See E.P. Reynolds, Inc. v. Nager Elec. Co., 21 A.D.2d 306.)

Concur — Breitel, J.P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Bastow, JJ.


Summaries of

Francesco v. Francesco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 15, 1965
23 A.D.2d 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)
Case details for

Francesco v. Francesco

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPHINE DI FRANCESCO (PACE), Respondent, v. MARIO J. DI FRANCESCO…

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

Date published: Apr 15, 1965

Citations

23 A.D.2d 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)

Citing Cases

R.W. Baylor Co., Inc. v. Rasby Realty, Inc.

Appellant failed to provide in its appendix any part of the testimony taken before the Referee (cf. CPLR…

Kahn v. City of New York

An appellant who submits an appeal on an incomplete record should abide the consequences. (See Di Francesco…