Quigley, E. v. Welch, M.

J-S54003-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

ERIN QUIGLEY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v.

MATTHEW WELCH

Appellant No. 83 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment Entered December 27, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Union County Civil Division at No(s): CV-165-2012

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MUNDY, J., and STABILE, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J. FILED AUGUST 28, 2014

Matthew Welch appeals from the judgment entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Union County in favor of Erin Quigley in the amount of $202,653.92. Specifically, Welch appeals from the award of $100,000.00 in compensatory damages, plus interest, for harm Quigley sustained when Welch threated and assaulted Quigley in her home. Welch does not appeal from the portion of the judgment consisting of an award of $100,000.00 in punitive damages. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the appeal.

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1911(a) requires an appellant to request and pay for transcripts of proceedings. Such transcripts the duty of the appellant, not the trial court, to provide an adequate certified

J-S54003-14

record for appellate review. Smith v. Smith, 637 A.2d 622 (Pa. Super. 1993).

The notice of appeal in the certified record of the instant matter is not accompanied by a request for transcript of the October 23, 2013 non-jury trial on damages. Moreover, the record in this case does not include a transcript of the trial. Where an appellant fails to comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration for preparation of the transcript, dismissal of the appeal may be appropriate. See Pa.R.A.P. 1911(d).

on to

Smith, supra Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1, 7 (Pa. Super. 2006) (en banc). See also In the Interest of R.N.F., 52 A.3d 361 (Pa. Super. 2012) (appeal dismissed where lack of transcript precluded meaningful appellate review).

Because the record does not include a transcript of the trial, we are unable to engage in meaningful appellate review, and thus are constrained

Appeal dismissed.

-2-

J-S54003-14

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 8/28/2014

-3-