| Gurwitz v French |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 09276 [90 AD3d 840] |
| December 20, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| David Gurwitz et al., Appellants, v Richard H. French, Jr.,et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Rivkin Radler LLP, Uniondale, N.Y. (Evan H. Krinick, Cheryl F. Korman, Merril S.Biscone, and Max Gershenoff of counsel), for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs have no liability to thedefendants based on a release, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of anorder of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Garvey, J.), dated December 1, 2009, as, uponreargument and renewal, in effect, vacated so much of the original determination as denied thosebranches of the defendants' motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss thefirst, second, fourth, and fifth causes of action as barred by a release, and thereupon granted thosebranches of the motion.
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.
"It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal, which mustcontain all of the relevant papers that were before the Supreme Court" (Block 6222 Constr. Corp. v Sobhani,84 AD3d 1292 [2011], quoting Wen Zong Yu v Hua Fan, 65 AD3d 1335 [2009]; seeCPLR 5526; Matter of Remy vMitchell, 60 AD3d 860 [2009]). Here, although the appellants included in the record onappeal a copy of the papers in support of and in opposition to the defendants' motion to dismissthe complaint, the appellants failed to include a copy of the motion papers pertaining to thedefendants' subsequent motion, the determination of which was the subject of the order appealedfrom. Thus, the record is inadequate to enable this Court to render an informed decision on themerits, and the appeal must be dismissed (see Block 6222 Constr. Corp. v Sobhani, 84 AD3d 1292 [2011]; Emco Tech Constr. Corp. v Pilavas, 68AD3d 918, 918-919 [2009]). Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Florio and Austin, JJ., concur.