| Kociubinski v Kociubinski |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03552 [83 AD3d 1006] |
| April 26, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Jan Kociubinski, Appellant, v Renata Kociubinski,Respondent. |
—[*1]
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered September20, 2001, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court,Kings County (Harkavy, J.H.O.), entered November 13, 2009, which, upon a decision of thesame court dated July 7, 2009, made after a hearing, granted the defendant's motion for an awardof child support arrears pursuant to the judgment of divorce and the parties' stipulation ofsettlement dated May 31, 2001, which was incorporated but not merged into the judgment ofdivorce, and is in favor of the defendant and against him in the principal sum of $17,600.
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
"It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal, which mustinclude any relevant transcripts of proceedings before the Supreme Court" (Nakyeoung Seoung v Vicuna, 38 AD3d734, 735 [2007]; see CPLR 5525 [a]; 5526; Schwartz v Schwartz, 73 AD3d 1156 [2010]; Gaffney v Gaffney, 29 AD3d 857[2006]; Fernald v Vinci, 13 AD3d333 [2004]; Gerhardt v New YorkCity Tr. Auth., 8 AD3d 427, 427 [2004]). "The record must contain all of the relevantpapers that were before the Supreme Court, including the transcript, if any, of the proceedings"(Matison v County of Nassau, 290 AD2d 494 [2002]; see Schwartz v Schwartz, 73 AD3d 1156 [2010]; Sultan vSultan, 295 AD2d 498 [2002]; Desmarat v Basile, 288 AD2d 336, 337 [2001]). Here,the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court which, inter alia, grantedthe defendant's motion, after a hearing, for an award of child support arrears pursuant to theparties' judgment of divorce and stipulation of settlement. However, the plaintiff's failure toprovide this Court with the full hearing transcript renders the record on appeal inadequate toenable this Court to reach an informed decision on the merits and, thus, the appeal must bedismissed (see Schwartz vSchwartz, 73 AD3d 1156 [2010]; Nakyeoung Seoung v Vicuna, 38 AD3d at735; Gerhardt v New York City Tr. Auth., 8 AD3d at 427; Sultan v Sultan, 295AD2d 498 [2002]). Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.