Emco Tech Constr. Corp. v Pilavas
2009 NY Slip Op 09422 [68 AD3d 918]
December 15, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 10, 2010


Emco Tech Construction Corp., Respondent,
v
AnthonyPilavas et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[*1]Palmeri & Gaven, New York, N.Y. (John J. Palmeri of counsel), for appellantStoneytown Development, LLC, and Kordas and Marinis, LLP, Long Island City, N.Y. (PeterMarinis of counsel), for appellant Anthony Pilavas (one brief filed).

LaReddola, Lester & Associates, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Robert J. LaReddola of counsel),for respondent.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a construction contract, thedefendants Anthony Pilavas and Stoneytown Development, LLC, appeal from so much of ajudgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Warshawsky, J.), entered August 25, 2008, as,after a nonjury trial, and upon an order of the same court dated June 12, 2008, in effect, grantingthat branch of the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (b) which was to set aside so muchof a decision of the same court dated April 1, 2008, as awarded the plaintiff the principal sum of$3,413, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Anthony Pilavas in the principal sumof $128,028 and dismissed their counterclaims.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The defendants Anthony Pilavas and Stoneytown Development, LLC (hereinafter theappellants), failed to include the papers in support of, and in opposition to, the plaintiff's posttrialmotion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (b) in the record on appeal.

It is the appellants' obligation to assemble a proper record on appeal (see CPLR5526; 22 NYCRR 670.10-b [b]; Sebag v Narvaez, 60 AD3d 485 [2009]). The appellants'reliance on CPLR 5528 is misplaced, as they did not utilize the appendix method whenperfecting their appeal. In the present case, the record was inadequate because if failed to includeall of the relevant documents that were before the Supreme Court (see Fernald v Vinci,13 AD3d 333 [2004]; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Vargas, 288 AD2d 309 [2001]).Appeals that are not based on a complete and proper record to enable this Court to render aninformed decision on the merits must be dismissed (see Matter of Arcarian Sys. Ltd., 38AD3d 649 [2007]; Garnerville Holding Co. v IMC Mgt., 299 AD2d 450 [2002];Matison v County of Nassau, 290 AD2d 494 [2002]). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Miller andRoman, JJ., concur.[Prior Case History: 20 Misc 3d 1132(A), 2008 NY Slip Op51703(U).]


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.