| Matter of Lynch |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05821 [98 AD3d 510] |
| August 1, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Kenneth D. Lynch, Also Known as Kenneth Lynch,Deceased. Karen Cullin, Appellant; Keith Lynch et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] John J. O'Grady, Garden City, N.Y. (Mary Ellen O'Brien of counsel), forpetitioner-respondent and respondent-respondent Gary Lynch.
In a contested probate proceeding, the objectant appeals, as limited by her brief, from somuch of an order and decree (one paper) of the Surrogate's Court, Nassau County (McCarty III,S.), dated September 9, 2011, as, upon a decision of the same court dated August 5, 2011, deniedher motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition, granted the petitioner's cross motionfor summary judgment dismissing her objections to probate based, inter alia, on fraud, andadmitted to probate the last will and testament of Kenneth D. Lynch, also known as KennethLynch, dated May 5, 2003.
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs payable by the appellant personally.
"It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal" (Wen Zong Yu v Hua Fan, 65 AD3d1335, 1335 [2009]; see LaSalleBank N.A. v Henderson, 69 AD3d 679, 680 [2010]; Matter of Remy v Mitchell, 60 AD3d 860 [2009]). An appellant'srecord must contain all the relevant papers submitted on the underlying motion (seeCPLR 5526; Wen Zong Yu v Hua Fan, 65 AD3d at 1335; Cohen v Wallace & Minchenberg, 39AD3d 689 [2007]; see also Matter of Coopersmith, 48 AD3d 562 [2008]).
Here, the record assembled on appeal does not include, inter alia, the instrument submittedfor probate, the objectant's affirmation in support of the motion for summary judgmentdismissing the petition, and certain documentary evidence, including affidavits and depositiontestimony, submitted by the petitioner in opposition to the motion and in support of his crossmotion. Moreover, the record assembled does not include any evidence submitted to theSurrogate's Court by the objectant which addressed her claim that the instrument was procured byfraud. As the record submitted is inadequate to enable this Court to render an informed decisionon the merits, 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]; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Vargas, 288 AD2d 309,310 [2001]). Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.