| Ciafone v Jobs for NY, Inc. |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 04420 [151 AD3d 692] |
| June 7, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| John J. Ciafone, Appellant, v Jobs for NY, Inc., et al.,Respondents. |
John J. Ciafone, Astoria, NY, appellant pro se.
Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP, New York, NY (Andrew G. Celli, Jr., ofcounsel), for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from an orderof the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sampson, J.), dated September 1, 2015, which grantedthat branch of the defendants' motion which was for leave to renew their prior motion pursuant toCPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint, which had been denied in an order of the same courtdated March 24, 2015, and, upon renewal, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss thecomplaint.
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.
"It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal" (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. vHounnou, 147 AD3d 814, 814 [2017] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Blaylock v State of New York, 118AD3d 836, 836 [2014]). "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]).
Here, the record on appeal is inadequate. The appellant failed to include in the record all ofthe relevant documents that were before the Supreme Court. The order appealed from recited thatopposition and reply papers were read on the defendants' motion, inter alia, for leave to renewtheir prior motion to dismiss the complaint, yet no such opposition or reply papers appear in therecord on appeal. The appeal must be dismissed because these omissions have renderedmeaningful appellate review of the court's order virtually impossible (see Coello v Gonzalez, 96 AD3d707, 707-708 [2012]; Cope vBarakaat, 89 AD3d 670, 671 [2011]). Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Roman, JJ.,concur.