| Bousson v Bousson |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 01279 [136 AD3d 954] |
| February 24, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Mary Elizabeth Haverty Bousson,Respondent, v Donald Bousson, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Donald Bousson,Appellant, v Mary Elizabeth Haverty Bousson, Also Known as Mary Elizabeth Haverty,Respondent. (Action No. 2.) |
Carolyn Zenk, Hampton Bays, NY, for appellant.
Louis Klieger, New York, NY, for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jerry Garguilo, J.),entered July 17, 2013. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, upon an order of thatcourt dated December 2, 2011, denying Donald Bousson's motion for an award ofinterim counsel fees in action Nos. 1 and 2, and upon a decision of that court datedFebruary 22, 2013, made after a nonjury trial, failed to award him interim counsel feesand counsel fees in action Nos. 1 and 2.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the judgment as failed to award DonaldBousson counsel fees in action Nos. 1 and 2 is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.
It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal thatcontains all of the relevant papers; appeals that are not based upon complete and properrecords must be dismissed (seeFernald v Vinci, 13 AD3d 333 [2004]; Gerhardt v New York City Tr. Auth., 8 AD3d 427 [2004];Garnerville Holding Co. v IMC Mgt., 299 AD2d 450, 451 [2002]).
The appendix submitted by the appellant does not include the trial transcript whichwas the basis for the court's determination after trial, with respect to his motion for anaward of counsel fees in action Nos. 1 and 2. Since the appellant has failed to submit arecord that would enable this Court to render an informed decision on the merits, theappeal from that portion of the judgment must be dismissed (see Fernald v Vinci, 13 AD3d333 [2004]; Garnerville Holding Co. v IMC Mgt., 299 AD2d at 451).
With respect to interim counsel fees, the Supreme Court, which properly took "the[*2]relative merit of the parties' positions" into account(DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881 [1987]), providently exercisedits discretion in denying the appellant's motion for an award of interim counsel fees inboth actions (see Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; Freihofner v Freihofner, 39AD3d 465 [2007]). Balkin, J.P., Austin, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.