Butti v. Butti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Butti v. Butti

151 A.D.2d 633, 543 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8220

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 19, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 151 A.D.2d 633 (Butti v. Butti) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Butti v. Butti, 151 A.D.2d 633, 543 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8220 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the [634]*634plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), dated November 3, 1988, as, upon reargument, denied his motion for a protective order to limit financial disclosure to the period ending with the commencement of a prior action for a judicial separation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is true that defendant’s commencement of a matrimonial action (see, CPLR 105 [p]; see also, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [2]) which culminated in a 1985 judgment of separation signaled the end of the parties’ economic partnership for purposes of determining, which assets are part of the marital estate (see, Lennon v Lennon, 124 AD2d 788, 790). However, full financial disclosure remains the rule rather than the exception in actions governed by the equitable distribution law where the parties have not settled their financial differences (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [4], [5]; cf, § 236 [B] [3]; Van Ess v Van Ess, 100 AD2d 848). The Supreme Court therefore properly declined to limit disclosure to the period prior to commencement of the separation action (see, Lennon v Lennon, supra, at 789; see also, Lee v Lee, 93 AD2d 221). Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the [634]*634plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), dated November 3, 1988, as, upon reargument, denied his motion for a protective order to limit financial disclosure to the period ending with the commencement of a prior action for a judicial separation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is true that defendant’s commencement of a matrimonial action (see, CPLR 105 [p]; see also, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [2]) which culminated in a 1985 judgment of separation signaled the end of the parties’ economic partnership for purposes of determining, which assets are part of the marital estate (see, Lennon v Lennon, 124 AD2d 788, 790). However, full financial disclosure remains the rule rather than the exception in actions governed by the equitable distribution law where the parties have not settled their financial differences (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [4], [5]; cf, § 236 [B] [3]; Van Ess v Van Ess, 100 AD2d 848). The Supreme Court therefore properly declined to limit disclosure to the period prior to commencement of the separation action (see, Lennon v Lennon, supra, at 789; see also, Lee v Lee, 93 AD2d 221). Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 A.D.2d 633, 543 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butti-v-butti-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack