Citimortgage Inc. v. Thorpe

• Decision Date: 20 September 2011
• Citation: 87 A.D.3d 1048,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 06546,929 N.Y.S.2d 752
• Parties: CITIMORTGAGE, INC., respondent,v.Gloria THORPE, appellant, et al., defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

87 A.D.3d 1048

929 N.Y.S.2d 752

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 06546

CITIMORTGAGE, INC., respondent,

v.Gloria THORPE, appellant, et al., defendants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Sept. 20, 2011.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREGloria Thorpe, Springfield Gardens, N.Y., appellant pro se.DeRose & Surico, Bayside, N.Y. (Bruce H. Ashbahian of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agate, J.), dated June 11, 2010, which denied her motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale entered upon her default in appearing or answering.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

“It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal, which must contain all of the relevant papers that were before the Supreme Court” ( Wen Zong Yu v. Hua Fan, 65 A.D.3d 1335, 1335, 885 N.Y.S.2d 605; see CPLR 5526; Block 6222 Constr. Corp. v. Sobhani, 84 A.D.3d 1292, 923 N.Y.S.2d 900; Keita v. United Parcel Serv., 65 A.D.3d 571, 884 N.Y.S.2d 139; Cohen v. Wallace & Minchenberg, 39 A.D.3d 689, 833 N.Y.S.2d 623). Here, the record is inadequate because it does not include all of the relevant papers and documents that were before the Supreme Court, e.g., the process server's affidavit of service and the default order dated February 4, 2010, both of which were submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the defendant's motion ( see Wen Zong Yu v. Hua Fan, 65 A.D.3d 1335, 885 N.Y.S.2d 605; Cohen v. Wallace & Minchenberg, 39 A.D.3d 689, 833 N.Y.S.2d 623; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Vargas, 288 A.D.2d 309, 310, 732 N.Y.S.2d 891). Since the record is inadequate to enable this Court to render an informed decision on the merits, the appeal must be dismissed ( see LaSalle Bank N.A. v. Henderson, 69 A.D.3d 679, 680, 891 N.Y.S.2d 655; Wen Zong Yu v. Hua Fan, 65 A.D.3d 1335, 885 N.Y.S.2d 605; Keita v. United Parcel Serv., 65 A.D.3d 571, 884 N.Y.S.2d 139).

SKELOS, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, LOTT and ROMAN, JJ., concur.