Cross Westchester Development Corp. v. Sleepy Hollow Motor Court, Inc.

• Decision Date: 29 December 1995
• Docket Number: No. 1,No. 5,No. 4,1,4,5
• Citation: 636 N.Y.S.2d 372,222 A.D.2d 644
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: CROSS WESTCHESTER DEVELOPMENT CORP., Respondent, v. SLEEPY HOLLOW MOTOR COURT, INC., et al., Appellants. (Action) Mario CHIULLI, et al., Appellants, v. CROSS WESTCHESTER DEVELOPMENT CORP., et al., Respondents. (Action) Mario CHIULLI, et al., Appellants, v. FINK, WEINBERGER, FREDMAN, BERMAN, LOWELL & FENSTERHEIM, P.C., et al., Respondents. (Action)

Page 372

636 N.Y.S.2d 372

222 A.D.2d 644

CROSS WESTCHESTER DEVELOPMENT CORP., Respondent, v. SLEEPY HOLLOW MOTOR COURT, INC., et al., Appellants. (Action No. 1.)

Mario CHIULLI, et al., Appellants, v. CROSS WESTCHESTER DEVELOPMENT CORP., et al., Respondents.

(Action No. 4.)

Mario CHIULLI, et al., Appellants, v. FINK, WEINBERGER, FREDMAN, BERMAN, LOWELL & FENSTERHEIM,

P.C., et al., Respondents. (Action No. 5.)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Dec. 29, 1995.

Peter H. McCallion, Garrison, for appellants.

Herrick, Feinstein, New York City (Steven M. Richman and Joseph D. Giacoia, of counsel), for respondent RPT Metro Equities, Ltd.

Fink, Weinberger, Fredman, Berman, Lowell & Fensterheim, P.C., White Plains (David S. Poppick, of counsel), respondent pro se and for remaining respondents; Couch, White, Brenner, Howard & Feigenbaum, Albany (Paul A. Feigenbaum of counsel), for remaining respondents (one brief filed).

Before MILLER, J.P., and PIZZUTO, JOY and GOLDSTEIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Motions by the respondents to dismiss three appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiNoto, J.), dated June 19, 1991, on the ground that the appellants' appendix and brief do not comply with the rules of this court. By a decision and order on motion of this court dated July 26, 1993, the motions were held in abeyance and referred to the Justices hearing the appeals for determination upon the argument or submission of the appeals.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motions, upon the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeals, it is,

ORDERED that the motions are granted, and the appeals are dismissed, with prejudice, on the ground that the appellants have failed to perfect them in accordance with the CPLR and the rules of this court (see, CPLR 5528[a]; 5529[b], [c]; 22 NYCRR 670.10[c] ).

It is the responsibility of the appellants to file an appendix that contains all relevant portions of the record in order to enable the court to render an informed determination of the merits of the appeal and to present the issues on appeal in a concise and clear manner (see, CPLR 5528[a]; 5529[b], [c]; 22 NYCRR 670.10[c]; Lo Gerfo v. Lo Gerfo, 30 A.D.2d 156, 290 N.Y.S.2d 1005).

This court has already stricken two briefs and appendices previously filed by the appellants due to their failure to comply with the CPLR and this court's rules. Also, this court directed the appellants to file a...