Matter of Gina C. v Michael C.

Annotate this Case
Matter of Gina C. v Michael C. 2011 NY Slip Op 06529 Decided on September 22, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on September 22, 2011
Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
5545

[*1]In re Gina C., Petitioner-Respondent,

v

Michael C., Respondent-Appellant.



 
Law Offices of Joseph J. Mainiero, New York (Joseph J.
Mainiero and Anthony Hilton of counsel) for appellant.
Yisroel Schulman, New York Legal Assistance Group, New
York (Christina Brandt-Young of counsel) for respondent.
Elisa Barnes, New York, attorney for the child.

Appeal from order, Family Court, Bronx County (Myrna Martinez-Perez, J.), entered on or about September 1, 2010, which, upon respondent's default, granted the attorney for the child's motion for summary judgment awarding custody of the child to petitioner, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Respondent failed to oppose or otherwise address the motion. Thus, the order was entered upon default and is not appealable (CPLR 5511; Matter of Anthony M.W.A. [Micah W.A.], 80 AD3d 476 [2011]; Matter of Jessenia Shanelle R. [Wanda Y.A.], 68 AD3d 558 [2009]). Respondent's remedy was to move before Family Court to vacate his default and, if the motion were denied, to appeal from the order denying it (Matter of Shabazz v Blackmon, 274 AD2d 770, 771 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 945 [2000]).

In any event, this Court could not have conducted a meaningful review of this matter because respondent failed to meet his obligation to assemble a proper record on appeal, including all the transcripts of the proceedings (see Sebag v Narvaez, 60 AD3d 485 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 711 [2009]; Lynch
v Consolidated Edison, Inc., 82 AD3d 442 [2011]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 [*2]

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.