De La Roche v. De La Roche

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De La Roche v. De La Roche

213 A.D.2d 208, 624 N.Y.S.2d 1

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 9, 1995·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—-Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered September 14, 1994, denying appellants’ motion to quash certain subpoenas and for related relief, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

"In a matrimonial action, under equitable distribution and Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (4), broad financial disclosure is necessary and required”, and such discovery is not [209]*209restricted to the parties but is obtainable from appropriate third parties (Gellman v Gellman, 160 AD2d 265, 267). Such discovery is permitted of an employer, even where there is no equity interest, especially where, as here, plaintiff has frustrated direct discovery (see, Lawson v Lawson, 194 AD2d 389) and where it appears plaintiff may have "other financial interests” in the entity (Colin v Colin, 113 AD2d 817, 818). Defendant provided ample evidence to support the discovery requests, and thus the court was within its discretion in denying the motions to quash the subpoenas. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

—-Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered September 14, 1994, denying appellants’ motion to quash certain subpoenas and for related relief, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

"In a matrimonial action, under equitable distribution and Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (4), broad financial disclosure is necessary and required”, and such discovery is not [209]*209restricted to the parties but is obtainable from appropriate third parties (Gellman v Gellman, 160 AD2d 265, 267). Such discovery is permitted of an employer, even where there is no equity interest, especially where, as here, plaintiff has frustrated direct discovery (see, Lawson v Lawson, 194 AD2d 389) and where it appears plaintiff may have "other financial interests” in the entity (Colin v Colin, 113 AD2d 817, 818). Defendant provided ample evidence to support the discovery requests, and thus the court was within its discretion in denying the motions to quash the subpoenas. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

De La Roche v. De La Roche, 213 A.D.2d 208, 624 N.Y.S.2d 1 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

213 A.D.2d 208 (De La Roche v. De La Roche) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related