Eades v. Eades

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eades v. Eades

83 A.D.2d 972, 442 N.Y.S.2d 815, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15433

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

DecidedSeptember 10, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 83 A.D.2d 972 (Eades v. Eades) 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

Eades v. Eades, 83 A.D.2d 972, 442 N.Y.S.2d 815, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15433 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Bryant, J.), entered December 23, 1980 in Tompkins County, which granted a motion by plaintiff for a protective order, vacating defendant’s notice to take a deposition upon oral examination with leave for defendant to demand a bill of particulars. After commencement of her action for divorce against defendant, plaintiff was permitted to serve a supplemental complaint charging defendant with adultery. Defendant noticed an examination of plaintiff on that allegation. Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order, prohibiting defendant from taking her deposition on that issue, was properly granted by Special Term. As his wife, plaintiff is not competent to testify on the issue of defendant’s adultery (CPLR 4502; see Dunlap v Dunlap, 34 AD2d 889). Further, we find no abuse of discretion by Special Term in granting the protective order. Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P.J., Main, Casey, Mikoll and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Bryant, J.), entered December 23, 1980 in Tompkins County, which granted a motion by plaintiff for a protective order, vacating defendant’s notice to take a deposition upon oral examination with leave for defendant to demand a bill of particulars. After commencement of her action for divorce against defendant, plaintiff was permitted to serve a supplemental complaint charging defendant with adultery. Defendant noticed an examination of plaintiff on that allegation. Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order, prohibiting defendant from taking her deposition on that issue, was properly granted by Special Term. As his wife, plaintiff is not competent to testify on the issue of defendant’s adultery (CPLR 4502; see Dunlap v Dunlap, 34 AD2d 889). Further, we find no abuse of discretion by Special Term in granting the protective order. Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P.J., Main, Casey, Mikoll and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.2d 972, 442 N.Y.S.2d 815, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eades-v-eades-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack