From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rush v. Insogna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 7, 1991
170 A.D.2d 753 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

February 7, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Schenectady County (Best, J.).


Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion to settle the record on appeal based on an incomplete trial transcript. In the absence of a stipulation by the parties to the contrary, the court was required under CPLR 5525 to settle only a complete trial transcript (CPLR 5525 [b], [c]; see, Perry v Tauro, 21 A.D.2d 804; see also, McLaughlin v United Airlines, 76 A.D.2d 982). Here, plaintiffs did not consent to only a portion of the record being transcribed and, even if the court had the power to permit omission of part of the transcript without plaintiffs' consent, it would be inappropriate in this case insofar as the parties disagree as to which portions of the transcript are relevant to this appeal.

Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P.J., Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rush v. Insogna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 7, 1991
170 A.D.2d 753 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Rush v. Insogna

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS B. RUSH et al., Respondents, v. RICHARD INSOGNA, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 7, 1991

Citations

170 A.D.2d 753 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Citing Cases

Matter of Avitzur v. Rose

As noted, the petition was dismissed as unnecessary and the cross petition was denied for failure to…

Affinity Elmwood Gateway Props., LLC v. AJC Props. LLC

We affirm. Contrary to defendants' contention, their appeal does not merely concern "exceptions to rulings on…