Keita v United Parcel Serv.

2009 NY Slip Op 06165 [65 AD3d 571]

August 11, 2009

Appellate Division, Second Department

As corrected through Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Mohamed Keita et al., Appellants, v United Parcel Serviceet al., Respondents.

—[*1]Mohamed Keita, and Massa Keita, an infant by her father and natural guardian,Mohamed Keita, Staten Island, N.Y., appellants pro se.

Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Steven B. Prystowsky of counsel), forrespondents United Parcel Service and Kutry B. Jerzy.

Jaffe & Asher LLP, New York, N.Y. (Marshall T. Potashner and Barak P. Cardenas ofcounsel), for respondents Liberty Mutual Insurance Group and Peerless Insurance.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal, aslimited by their brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County(Maltese, J.), dated April 18, 2008, which, inter alia, granted the motion of the defendants UnitedParcel Service and Kutry B. Jerzy to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiffMohamed Keita against them.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with one bill of costs.

In two decisions and orders on motion, dated December 24, 2008, and March 12, 2009,respectively, this Court directed the plaintiffs to serve and file a supplemental record containing,inter alia, the answers to the complaint and "the notice of motion and affidavits annexed thereto,answering affidavits, if any, and reply affidavits, if any, submitted in connection with the motionthat resulted in the order being appealed." The plaintiffs have failed to do so.

It is the appellants' obligation to assemble a proper record on appeal (see Salem v Mott, 43 AD3d 397[2007]; Cohen v Wallace &Minchenberg, 39 AD3d 689, 689 [2007]). In this regard, "[t]he record must contain allof the relevant papers that were before the Supreme Court" (Cohen v Wallace & Minchenberg, 39 AD3d 689 [2007]; seeCPLR 5526; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Vargas, 288 AD2d 309, 310 [2001]).Where, as here, meaningful appellate review of the Supreme Court's determination is made"virtually impossible" because of the incomplete nature of the record submitted, dismissal of theappeal is the appropriate disposition (Salem v Mott, 43 AD3d 397 [2007]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Belenand Austin, JJ., concur.