Case Name: Joyce Lan Zhen Zhao et al., Respondents, v. Na Chan et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2018-01-24
Citations: 157 A.D.3d 878
Docket Number: 
Parties: Joyce Lan Zhen Zhao et al., Respondents, v Na Chan et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
Judges: Hall, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and Christopher, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 157
Pages: 878–879

Head Matter:
Joyce Lan Zhen Zhao et al., Respondents, v Na Chan et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
[67 NYS3d 473]

Opinion:
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Richard N. Allman, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated December 1, 2014. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants Na Chan and Tak Ching Chan in the total principal sum of $882,650.
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.
The plaintiffs commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 USC § 77e et seq.). On December 1, 2014, after a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court issued a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants Na Chan and Tak Ching Chan (hereinafter together the defendants). The defendants appeal from the judgment.
" 'An appellant who perfects an appeal by using the appendix method must file an appendix that contains all the relevant portions of the record in order to enable the court to render an informed decision on the merits of the appeal' " (Swift v Broadway Neon Sign Corp., 137 AD3d 893, 893 [2016], quoting NYCTL 1998-1 Trust v Shahipour, 29 AD3d 965, 965 [2006]). "The appendix shall contain those portions of the record necessary to permit the court to fully consider the issues which will be raised by the appellant and the respondent, including material excerpts from transcripts of testimony" (Beizer v Swedish, 125 AD3d 703, 703 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). " 'An appellate court should not be subjected to the task of untangling and mastering the facts from an inadequate and incoherent appendix' " (Diana v DeLisa, 151 AD3d 806, 808-809 [2017], quoting Lo Gerfo v Lo Gerfo, 30 AD2d 156, 157 [1968]). Here, since the appendix, which contained only limited portions of the trial transcripts, is inadequate to enable this Court to render an informed decision on the merits, the appeal must be dismissed (see Aguiar-Consolo v City of New York, 113 AD3d 707, 708 [2014]).
Hall, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and Christopher, JJ., concur.