In response to the mandate on e-filing in New York State civil actions, a 2014 legislative amendment was made to CPLR 2214(c) which no longer required parties to include copies of previously filed documents with their motion papers. Rather, litigants may simply incorporate the earlier document via NYSCEF docket reference. The amendment provided, in part, that (CPLR 2214):
Except when the rules of the court provide otherwise, in an e-file action, a party that files papers in connection with a motion need not include copies of papers that were filed previously electronically with the court, but may make reference to them, giving the docket numbers on the e-filing system.
This amendment helped to streamline the litigation process for both the parties and the courts, highlighting the benefit toward judicial and party economy. However, the change also sometimes presented something of a quandary for an appellant litigant compiling a record on appeal pursuant to CPLR 5526. Under that statute, the record on appeal from an interlocutory order “shall consist of. . . the papers and other exhibits upon which the. . . order was founded. . .” Given the growing dependence upon NYSCEF docket numbers in support of presenting the factual and procedural background in a set of motion papers, this sometimes begged the question of whether the entirety of such documents, perhaps not referenced by the motion court at all in rendering its interlocutory determination, should be deemed part of the “papers” upon which the order was founded.
Fast forward to 2025, and the Second Department has recently dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the appellant had failed to reproduce copies of all the underlying documents incorporated via NYSCEF docket reference in their filed record (see, Sterling Trust Ltd. v. Stern, 237 AD3d 1236 [2d Dept., 2025]). In so holding, the Court recognized that, while plaintiff had properly placed the pleadings and the underlying summary judgment papers before the Motion Court via NYSCEF document reference, they had failed to fully reproduce said documents in their record on appeal in accordance with CPLR 5526. Without these inclusions, the Court concluded that it could not meaningfully review the order and therefore dismissed the appeal.
The Court’s reasoning in Sterling Trust relied on a recent similar decision which stated, “pursuant to CPLR 5526, it is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal, and the record must contain all of the relevant papers that were before the Supreme Court” (see, Fitzpatrick v. Affairs & Banquets Floral Servs., Inc., 227 AD3d 954 [2d Dept., 2024]). In circumstances where an appellant’s failure to compile a “complete and proper record” … “renders meaningful appellate review of the court’s determination virtually impossible, the appeal must be dismissed” (Fitzpatrick v. Affairs & Banquets Floral Servs., Inc., 227 AD3d 954, supra).
This begs the question, what can practitioners learn from the failures seen in cases like Sterling Trust and Fitzpatrick? As the court system continues to modernize and embrace digital processes, the Appellate Division remains steadfast in its commitment to requiring the reproduction of a complete record on appeal so as to ensure that meaningful appellate review is attained. As evinced by Sterling Trust, the Appellate Division demands that a record be produced which allows for “meaningful appellate review”. In light of Sterling Trust, we know that failing to reproduce the pleadings and the underlying motion papers when appealing from an order denying a renewal motion will run afoul of CPLR 5526 and result in dismissal of the appeal.
The takeaway: procedural fluency in the rules of appellate litigation is not just helpful, it is essential. Don’t let a procedural shortcoming result in a dismissal of your meritorious appeal.