Cope v. Barakaat
| Decision Date | 01 November 2011 |
| Citation | 89 A.D.3d 670,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 07800,931 N.Y.S.2d 910 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | Dock A. COPE, appellant,v.Aatif BARAKAAT, et al., defendants, Olabanji Awosika, et al., respondents. |
89 A.D.3d 670
931 N.Y.S.2d 910
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 07800
Dock A. COPE, appellant,
v.
Aatif BARAKAAT, et al., defendants, Olabanji Awosika, et al., respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov. 1, 2011.
Joseph A. Altman, P.C., Bronx, N.Y., for appellant.Lazarowitz & Manganillo, LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Philip M. Hines of counsel), for respondent Olabanji Awosika.Donald G. Davis, New York, N.Y., for respondent Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.
[89 A.D.3d 670] In an action, inter alia, to set aside a deed, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated May 21, 2010, which granted the motion of the defendant Olabanji Awosika pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant for failure to prosecute and denied his cross motion to restore the action to the pre-note of issue calendar, and (2) an order of the same court dated October 1, 2010, which granted the separate motion of the defendant Olabanji Awosika to cancel two notices of pendency filed in connection with the subject real property and denied his separate cross motion, inter alia, for leave to renew his opposition to the motion of the defendant Olabanji Awosika pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant for failure to prosecute.
ORDERED that the order dated May 21, 2010, is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated October 1, 2010, is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants Olabanji Awosika and Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., payable by the plaintiff.
The appeal from the order dated October 1, 2010, must be dismissed. It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal ( see Udell v. Naghavi, 82 A.D.3d 960, 919 N.Y.S.2d 79; LaSalle Bank N.A. v. Henderson, 69 A.D.3d 679, 891 N.Y.S.2d 655; Wen Zong Yu v. Hua Fan, 65 A.D.3d 1335, 885 N.Y.S.2d 605). That record “must contain all of the relevant papers that were before the Supreme Court” [89 A.D.3d 671] ( LaSalle Bank N.A. v. Henderson, 69 A.D.3d at 680, 891 N.Y.S.2d 655 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see CPLR 5526; Wen Zong Yu v. Hua Fan, 65 A.D.3d at 1335, 885 N.Y.S.2d 605). Here, although the plaintiff appealed from the order dated October 1, 2010, granting the motion of the defendant Olabanji Awosika to cancel two notices of pendency filed in connection with certain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Furrukh v. Forest Hills Hosp.
...move, before the default date, to vacate the 90–day demand or to extend the 90–day period pursuant to CPLR 2004 ( see Cope v. Barakaat, 89 A.D.3d 670, 671, 931 N.Y.S.2d 910;Gagnon v. Campbell, 86 A.D.3d 623, 624, 927 N.Y.S.2d 602;Blackwell v. Long Is. Coll. Hosp., 303 A.D.2d at 616, 756 N.Y......
-
Jedraszak v. Cnty. of Westchester
...Jewish Forest Hills Hosp., 98 A.D.3d 644, 645, 949 N.Y.S.2d 781;Saginor v. Brook, 92 A.D.3d 860, 860, 939 N.Y.S.2d 124;Cope v. Barakaat, 89 A.D.3d 670, 931 N.Y.S.2d 910;Sanchez v. Serje, 78 A.D.3d 1155, 1156, 913 N.Y.S.2d 919;Picot v. City of New York, 50 A.D.3d 757, 758, 855 N.Y.S.2d 237).......
-
Garcia v. N. Shore Long Island Jewish Forest Hills Hosp.
...or to enlarge the 90–day period pursuant to CPLR 2004 ( see Saginor v. Brook, 92 A.D.3d 860, 860, 939 N.Y.S.2d 124;Cope v. Barakaat, 89 A.D.3d 670, 931 N.Y.S.2d 910;Sanchez v. Serje, 78 A.D.3d 1155, 1156, 913 N.Y.S.2d 919). Having failed to pursue either of the foregoing options, the plaint......
-
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Inga
...Hills A.C., Inc., 119 A.D.3d 623, 623, 990 N.Y.S.2d 49 ; Griffith v. Wray, 109 A.D.3d 512, 513–514, 970 N.Y.S.2d 458 ; Cope v. Barakaat, 89 A.D.3d 670, 671, 931 N.Y.S.2d 910 ). The plaintiff failed to do either within the 90–day period. Therefore, in order to excuse the default, the plainti......