Matter of Orok-Edem v. Wondemagegehu

Matter of Orok-Edem v Wondemagegehu (2023 NY Slip Op 05733) Matter of Orok-Edem v Wondemagegehu 2023 NY Slip Op 05733 Decided on November 15, 2023 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Decided on November 15, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P. CHERYL E. CHAMBERS DEBORAH A. DOWLING LILLIAN WAN, JJ. 2023-02512 (Docket Nos. F-1144-19/19A, F-1144-19/19B) [*1]In the Matter of Edmund Orok-Edem, appellant, v Kidist Wondemagegehu, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Kidist Wondemagegehu, respondent, v Edmund Orok-Edem, appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) Da'Tekena Barango-Tariah, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant. Twyla Carter, New York, NY (Robert Beau Kellogg of counsel), for respondent. DECISION & ORDER In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Alison M. Hamanjian, J.), dated February 14, 2023. The order, in effect, denied the father's objections to (1) an order of the same court (Marjorie R. Steinberg, S.M.) dated September 14, 2022, which, after a hearing, granted the mother's petition to enforce the provisions of the parties' judgment of divorce awarding her child support and maintenance, and (2) an order of the same court (Marjorie R. Steinberg, S.M.) dated September 28, 2022, which, after a hearing, directed the father to pay child support in the amount of $1,713 per month. ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements. It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal (see CPLR 5525; Matter of Camarda v Charlot, 208 AD3d 1323, 1323-1324). Here, the father's failure to provide this Court with the exhibits admitted into evidence at the Family Court hearing renders the record on appeal inadequate to enable this Court to reach an informed determination on the merits. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed (see Matter of Camarda v Charlot, 208 AD3d at 1323-1324; Matter of Petrosino v Petrosino, 192 AD3d 1037, 1037; Matter of Gupta v Kumar, 146 AD3d 886, 886). BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., CHAMBERS, DOWLING and WAN, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph Acting Clerk of the Court