In re Lynch

Decision Date19 July 2017
Citation55 N.Y.S.3d 909 (Mem)
Parties In the Matter of Kenneth D. LYNCH, also known as Kenneth Lynch, deceased. Karen Cullin, appellant; Keith Lynch, et al., respondents.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Paul W. Haug, Medford, NY, for appellant.

John J. O'Grady, Garden City, NY, for respondents.

In a contested probate proceeding, the objectant appeals from an order of the Surrogate's Court, Nassau County (McCarty III, S.), dated June 29, 2015, which denied her motion, inter alia, for leave to renew her prior motion for summary judgment on her objections and to deny admission of the decedent's will to probate, and granted the respondents' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the objections and for admission of the will to probate.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

"It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal" (Wen Zong Yu v. Hua Fan, 65 A.D.3d 1335, 1335, 885 N.Y.S.2d 605 ; see LaSalle Bank N.A. v. Henderson, 69 A.D.3d 679, 680, 891 N.Y.S.2d 655 ; Matter of Remy v. Mitchell, 60 A.D.3d 860, 874 N.Y.S.2d 387 ). An appellant's record must contain all of the relevant papers submitted on the underlying motion (see CPLR 5526 ; Wen Zong Yu v. Hua Fan, 65 A.D.3d at 1335, 885 N.Y.S.2d 605 ; Cohen v. Wallace & Minchenberg, 39 A.D.3d 689, 833 N.Y.S.2d 623 ; see also Matter of Coopersmith, 48 A.D.3d 562, 852 N.Y.S.2d 247 ).

Here, the record assembled on appeal does not include, inter alia, several exhibits that were submitted in support of the respondents' cross motion for summary judgment. As those exhibits are relevant to the appellant's contentions on appeal, the record is inadequate to enable this Court to render an informed decision on the merits, and consequently the appeal must be dismissed (see Block 6222 Constr. Corp. v. Sobhani, 84 A.D.3d 1292, 923 N.Y.S.2d 900 ; Emco Tech Constr. Corp. v. Pilavas, 68 A.D.3d 918, 918–919, 892 N.Y.S.2d 426 ; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Vargas, 288 A.D.2d 309, 310, 732 N.Y.S.2d 891 ).

We decline the respondent's request to impose sanctions on the appellant (see generally Swartz v. Swartz, 145 A.D.3d 818, 831, 44 N.Y.S.3d 452 ).

DILLON, J.P., COHEN, DUFFY and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT