SHAHAR KENAN, plf-ap, v. LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC, def-res

274. SHAHAR KENAN, plf-ap, v. LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC, def-res — Gary Voskresensky, Ridgewood, for ap — Levine & Blitt, PLLC, New York (Justin S. Clark of counsel), for res — Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered April 14, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant Levine & Blit, PLLC's motion to dismiss the complaint as against individual defendants Matthew J. Blit, Esq. and Les J. Levine, Esq., denied plaintiff's motion for a default judgment, and directed corporate defendant Levine & Blit, PLLC to serve an answer to the complaint within twenty days of service of the order with notice of entry, unanimously dismissed, without costs, for failure to perfect the appeal in accordance with the CPLR and the rules of this Court.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

274. SHAHAR KENAN, plf-ap, v. LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC, def-res — Gary Voskresensky, Ridgewood, for ap — Levine & Blitt, PLLC, New York (Justin S. Clark of counsel), for res — Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered April 14, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant Levine & Blit, PLLC’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against individual defendants Matthew J. Blit, Esq. and Les J. Levine, Esq., denied plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment, and directed corporate defendant Levine & Blit, PLLC to serve an answer to the complaint within twenty days of service of the order with notice of entry, unanimously dismissed, without costs, for failure to perfect the appeal in accordance with the CPLR and the rules of this Court.

The appendix submitted on this appeal is patently insufficient for the purpose of passing on the contentions raised in the respective briefs, because plaintiff failed to submit the underlying papers including his motion for default judgement, defendant’s cross motion and J.H.O. Gammerman’s report issued after the February 3, 2014 traverse hearing (see Feigelson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 36 AD2d 929 [1st Dept 1971]; 22 NYCRR 670.10.2 [c] [1]; CPLR 5528[a]).

SHAHAR KENAN, plf-ap, v. LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC, def-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal