| Gorelik v Gorelik |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 05230 [85 AD3d 859] |
| June 14, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Gennady Gorelik, Appellant, v Elena Gorelik,Respondent. |
—[*1]
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated February 10,1997, the plaintiff appeals from a money judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Harkavy, J.H.O.), dated February 22, 2010, which, upon a decision of the same court datedJanuary 22, 2010, made after a hearing, and upon an order of the same court (Ambrosio, J.),entered March 10, 2009, inter alia, granting that branch of the defendant's motion which was forleave to reargue those branches of her cross motion which were to compel the plaintiff to pay hispro rata share of the unreimbursed medical expenses of the parties' children and 100% of thechildren's summer camp expenses, which had been, in effect, denied in an order dated July 14,2008, thereupon vacated the determination in the order dated July 14, 2008, in effect, denyingthose branches of the defendant's cross motion, granted those branches of the defendant's crossmotion, and directed the plaintiff to pay his pro rata share the children's unreimbursed medicalexpenses and 100% share of the children's summer camp expenses, is in favor of the defendantand against him in the principal sum of $12,257.
Ordered that the appeal from the money judgment is dismissed (see CPLR 5511)except insofar as it brings up for review so much of the order entered March 10, 2009, as grantedthat branch of the defendant's motion which was for leave to reargue those branches of her crossmotion which were to compel the plaintiff to pay his pro rata share of the unreimbursed medicalexpenses of the parties' children and 100% of the children's summer camp expenses, thereuponvacated the determination in the order dated July 14, 2008, in effect, denying those branches ofthe defendant's cross motion, granted those branches of the defendant's cross motion, anddirected the plaintiff to pay his pro rata share of the children's unreimbursed medical expensesand 100% of the children's summer camp expenses; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the Supreme Court, in an order entered March 10,2009, properly granted the defendant's motion for leave to reargue those branches of her crossmotion which were to compel the plaintiff to pay his pro rata share of the unreimbursed medicalexpenses of the parties' children and 100% of the children's summer camp expenses (seeCPLR 2221 [d]; see generallyScarito v St. Joseph Hill Academy, 62 AD3d 773 [2009]), and thereupon properlygranted those branches of the defendant's cross motion. The plaintiff's contention that theseexpenses were discharged by an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the EasternDistrict [*2]of New York is without merit.
Prior to the entry of the money judgment dated February 22, 2010, the plaintiff submitted amotion, which he characterized as one pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the defendant's"claims" for payment of the children's summer camp and unreimbursed medical expenses. Theplaintiff's motion was, in actuality, for leave to reargue his opposition to those branches of thedefendant's cross motion which were to compel him to tender those payments, which had beendetermined in the order entered March 10, 2009, made upon reargument. In a companion appeal,we determined that an order dated September 17, 2009, denying the plaintiff's motion, was notappealable, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see Gorelik v Gorelik,85 AD3d — [2011] [decided herewith]). The issues raised on the appeal from that orderare not brought up for review on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).
We do not reach the plaintiff's remaining contentions. "It is the obligation of the appellant toassemble a proper record on appeal, which must include any relevant transcripts of proceedingsbefore the Supreme Court" (Kruseck vRoss, 82 AD3d 939, 940 [2011]; see Rivera v City of New York, 80 AD3d 595 [2011]; Vandenburg & Feliu, LLP v InterboroPackaging Corp., 70 AD3d 931, 932 [2010]). The plaintiff seeks review of the judgmentawarding the defendant the principal sum of $12,257, representing his pro rata share of thechildren's unreimbursed medical expenses and 100% of their summer camp expenses, made aftera hearing was held to determine the validity and reasonableness of the claimed expenses.However, the plaintiff has failed to include the hearing transcripts in the record on appeal.Accordingly, the record is inadequate to enable this Court to render an informed decision on theremaining issues raised in the plaintiff's brief (see Rivera v City of New York, 80 AD3dat 595; Vandenburg & Feliu, LLP v Interboro Packaging Corp., 70 AD3d at 932),including the propriety of the amounts awarded. Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Hall and Austin, JJ.,concur.