From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mahunik v. Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 7, 1997
236 A.D.2d 885 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

February 7, 1997.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Doerr, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.


Defendants contend that the record of the proceedings at the Village Court of the Village of Port Byron filed with County Court is insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review ( see, UJCA 1704 [a]). Defendants, "by failing to resolve any issue of the sufficiency of the record before Justice Court ( see, UJCA 1704 [a]), waived any alleged defects ( see, Moyle v Bracci, 119 Misc 2d 185, 187)" ( Matter of Lightcap v McGroggan, 160 AD2d 1188, 1189). We agree with County Court that nothing in the record suggests "that substantial justice has not been done between the parties — (UJCA 1807; see, Apfel v D. A. Bennett, Inc., 109 AD2d 1039, 1040; Blair v Five Points Shopping Plaza, 51 AD2d 167, 168). (Appeal from Order of Cayuga County Court, Corning, J. — Small Claims.)


Summaries of

Mahunik v. Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 7, 1997
236 A.D.2d 885 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Mahunik v. Harris

Case Details

Full title:JAMES MAHUNIK, Respondent, v. WENDY HARRIS et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Feb 7, 1997

Citations

236 A.D.2d 885 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
653 N.Y.S.2d 902

Citing Cases

Morse v. Brozzo

Respondent further contends that the minutes of the hearing testimony in the clerk's statement were…