Mure v Mure
2012 NY Slip Op 00942 [92 AD3d 653]
February 7, 2012
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Anton Mure, Appellant-Respondent,
Lisa Mure, Respondent-Appellant.

[*1] Mangi & Graham, LLP, Westbury, N.Y. (James J. Graham of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

J. Douglas Barics, Garden City, N.Y., for respondent-appellant.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (M. Cohen, J.), dated July 15, 2010, and the defendant cross-appeals from the judgment.

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed as abandoned (see 22 NYCRR 670.8 [e]); and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.

" 'An appellant who perfects an appeal by using the appendix method must file an appendix that contains all the relevant portions of the record in order to enable the court to render an informed decision on the merits of the appeal' " (Gandolfi v Gandolfi, 66 AD3d 834, 835 [2009], quoting NYCTL 1998-1 Trust v Shahipour, 29 AD3d 965 [2006]; see Patel v Patel, 270 AD2d 241 [2000]). "The appendix shall contain those portions of the record necessary to permit the court to fully consider the issues which will be raised by the appellant and the respondent" (22 NYCRR 670.10-b [c] [1]; see CPLR 5528 [a] [5]). Here, critical exhibits are missing from the plaintiff's appendix. "These omissions inhibit the court's ability to render an informed decision on the merits of the appeal" (Matter of Embro v Smith, 59 AD3d 542 [2009] [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Gaffney v Gaffney, 29 AD3d 857 [2006]). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed (see Matter of Embro v Smith, 59 AD3d at 542). Rivera, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Cohen, JJ., concur.