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.
Fahti Mohssen, appellant, v. Ruben Gonzalez, respondent.
Argued—November 6, 2025
DECISION & ORDER
O/
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for trespass and nuisance, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lawrence Knipel, J.), dated August 4, 2021. The order, insofar as appealed from, upon reargument, adhered to a prior determination in an order of the same court (Johnny Lee Baynes, J.) dated December 20, 2018, denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the amended complaint and granting the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.
“It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal” (Wilmington Trust Co. v. Buscemi, 207 AD3d 503, 505). “An appellant's record must contain all the relevant papers that were before the Supreme Court” (id.; see CPLR 5526). “Appeals that are not based upon complete and proper records must be dismissed” (Fitzpatrick v. CSS Indus., Inc., 236 AD3d 863, 863 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).
Here, after the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the amended complaint and granted the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint, the plaintiff moved for leave to reargue his motion and his opposition to the defendant's cross-motion. In an order dated August 4, 2021, the court, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination denying the plaintiff's motion and granting the defendant's cross-motion. On the instant appeal, the record does not include all of the relevant papers that were before the court including a majority of the papers submitted in support of, and in opposition to, the underlying summary judgment motions. Since these omissions have rendered meaningful review of the court's order virtually impossible, the plaintiff's appeal from the order dated August 4, 2021, must be dismissed (see id. at 863–864; Wilmington Trust Co. v. Buscemi, 207 AD3d at 505).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are not properly before this Court.
IANNACCI, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2021–06396
Decided: May 27, 2026
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)