Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Amos Katz, appellant, v. Hazel Dotan, respondent. In the Matter of Hazel Dotan, respondent, v Amos Katz, appellant.
Submitted—November 7, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In related child support proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Kent, J.), dated May 21, 2010, which denied his objections to two orders of the same court (Cahn, S.M.), both dated February 5, 2010, which, after a hearing, inter alia, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.
ORDERED that the 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 § 1118; CPLR 5525[a]; Matter of Remy v. Mitchell, 60 AD3d 860). 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 Rudick v. Rudick, 16 AD3d 514). In this case, the full record of the proceedings in the Family Court has not been transcribed (see Matter of Davis v. Pegues, 266 A.D.2d 288; Matter of Baiko v. Baiko, 141 A.D.2d 635).
This appeal must be dismissed, as the papers provided were patently insufficient for the purpose of reviewing the issues the father has raised (see Matter of Remy v. Mitchell, 60 AD3d at 860; Matter of Zullo v. Hom, 22 AD3d 675, 676; Matter of Rudick v. Rudick, 16 AD3d at 514).
RIVERA, J.P., LEVENTHAL, BELEN and ROMAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 2010–07153 (Docket Nos. F–932–01 /08I, F–932–01 /09L–M)
Decided: December 06, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)