| Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Hounnou |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 00958 [147 AD3d 814] |
| February 8, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee forCarrington Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2005-FRE1 Asset-Backed Pass Through Certificates,Respondent, v Yapi Hounnou et al., Defendants, and Anatole Hounnou,Appellant. |
Akhilesh Krishna, Richmond Hill, NY, for appellant.
Peter T. Roach & Associates, P.C., Syosset, NY (Michael C. Manniello of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Anatole Hounnou appeals from an orderof the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), entered March 11, 2015, which denied hismotion to vacate his default in answering the complaint, for leave to serve a late answer, and tovacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court, entered November 3, 2014.
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.
" 'It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal' "(Blaylock v State of New York, 118AD3d 836, 836 [2014], quoting Matison v County of Nassau, 290 AD2d 494, 495[2002]; see Milowski v Michael, 69AD3d 909, 909 [2010]). "An appellant's record on appeal must contain all of the relevantpapers before the Supreme Court" (Gaffney v Gaffney, 29 AD3d 857, 857 [2006]; see CPLR5526). "Appeals that are not based upon complete and proper records must be dismissed"(Garnerville Holding Co. v IMC Mgt., 299 AD2d 450, 450 [2002]; see Ghatani v AGH Realty, LLC, 136AD3d 744 [2016]; Fernald vVinci, 13 AD3d 333, 334 [2004]).
Here, the record on appeal is inadequate. The appellant has failed to include the order toshow cause by which he moved to vacate his default in answering the complaint, for leave toserve a late answer, and to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale entered November 3, 2014,or any affirmations or affidavits submitted in support of the motion and any exhibits attachedthereto. The omission of these documents from the record renders any meaningful appellatereview of the Supreme Court's order virtually impossible (see CPLR 5526; Aurora Indus., Inc. v Halwani, 102AD3d 900, 901 [2013]; Barretti vSolucorp Indus., Ltd., 102 AD3d 642, 643 [2013]; Coello v Gonzalez, 96 AD3d 707, 707-708 [2012]; Briscoe v White, 34 AD3d 712,714 [2006]). Accordingly, dismissal of the appeal from the order is the appropriate disposition(see Barretti v Solucorp Indus., Ltd., 102 AD3d at 643). Chambers, J.P., Austin,Hinds-Radix and Barros, JJ., concur.