Khadija Abouelhassan, respondent, v Hisham Ahmed Almehdawi, appellant.
2016-11958 (Index No. 51458/13)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Judicial Department
November 20, 2019
2019 NY Slip Op 08385
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, BETSY BARROS, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to
DECISION & ORDER
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Esther M. Morgenstern, J.), dated September 23, 2016. The judgment, upon an order of the same court dated December 18, 2013, denying the defendant‘s motion pursuant to
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
As a general rule, we do not consider an issue raised on a subsequent appeal that was raised, or could have been raised, in an earlier appeal which was dismissed for lack of prosecution, although we have inherent jurisdiction to do so (see Rubeo v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 93 NY2d 750; Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d 350). Here, the defendant appealed from an order dated December 18, 2013, which denied his motion pursuant to
The remainder of the appeal must be dismissed for failure to compile an adequate appendix. “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” (NYCTL 1998-1 Trust v Shahipour, 29 AD3d 965, 965 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Gandolfi v Gandolfi, 66 AD3d 834, 835; Patel v Patel, 270 AD2d 241). “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” (
Here, the appellant contends that the Supreme Court erred in determining that the parties were validly married. The court‘s decision after trial indicates that the court received evidence at the trial on that issue, including the appellant‘s purported testimony that the marriage was “fake.” However, the appellant‘s appendix does not contain any of the relevant trial transcripts and, therefore, is inadequate to enable this Court to render an informed decision on the merits.
Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.
AUSTIN, J.P., ROMAN, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
