Menu Close

In the Matter of Anita Gupta, appellant,
v
Vipan Kumar, respondent.

Appellate Division, Second Department
January 18, 2017

Matter of Gupta v Kumar
2017 NY Slip Op 00306

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
SANDRA L. SGROI
COLLEEN D. DUFFY
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
2015-06635

Anita Gupta, Forest Hills, NY, appellant pro se.

Steven Alexander Biolsi, New York, NY, for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Ronald E. Richter, J.), dated April 7, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the mother's objections to an order of that court (Joette M. Blaustein, S.M.) dated December 24, 2014, which, after a hearing, inter alia, denied her petition for an upward modification of the father's child support obligation.

ORDERED that appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal (see Family Ct Act ยง 1118; CPLR 5525[a]; Matter of Leichter-Kessler v Kessler, 117 AD3d 825, 826; Matter of Remy v Mitchell, 60 AD3d 860; Matter of Zaikowski v Monzon, 277 AD2d 459). The failure to provide necessary transcripts inhibits the Court's ability to render an informed decision on the merits of the appeal (see Matter of Leichter-Kessler v Kessler, 117 AD3d 825; Matter of Remy v Mitchell, 60 AD3d 860; Matter of Rudick v Rudick, 16 AD3d 514). Here, although the mother provided the transcript of the proceedings from the first day of the multiday fact-finding hearing held in connection with her petition, she failed to provide this Court with any of the transcripts from the remaining days. Since the papers provided were patently insufficient for the purpose of reviewing the issues that the mother raises, the appeal must be dismissed (see Matter of Leichter-Kessler v Kessler, 117 AD3d 825; Matter of Remy v Mitchell, 60 AD3d 860).

RIVERA, J.P., SGROI, DUFFY and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

The case of Gupta v Kumar is provided as part of a free educational service by J. Douglas Barics, attorney at law, for reference only. Cases such as Gupta v Kumar may be overruled by subsequent decisions, different judicial departments may have different controlling case law, and the level of the court deciding each case will determine whether it is controlling law or not. Gupta v Kumar  is presented here to help illustrate how the law works in general, but for specific legal matters, an attorney should be consulted.

If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact Mr. Barics at lawyer@jdbar.com or (631) 864-2600. For more articles and information, please visit www.jdbar.com.