Gape v. Gape

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gape v. Gape

125 A.D.2d 637, 510 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62925

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 125 A.D.2d 637 (Gape v. Gape) 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

Gape v. Gape, 125 A.D.2d 637, 510 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62925 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a [638]*638matrimonial action, the plaintiff wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hurley, J.), dated November 18, 1985, which denied her motion for a protective order striking the defendant husband’s interrogatories and notice for discovery and inspection.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Special Term correctly denied the motion. We have consistently held that there is to be broad disclosure in actions in which equitable distribution is sought, and each party is entitled to a searching exploration of the other spouse’s assets, both to aid in valuation and to uncover potential hidden assets (see, Litman v Litman, 123 AD2d 310; Charpentier v Charpentier, 114 AD2d 923; Kaye v Kaye, 102 AD2d 682). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

— In a [638]*638matrimonial action, the plaintiff wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hurley, J.), dated November 18, 1985, which denied her motion for a protective order striking the defendant husband’s interrogatories and notice for discovery and inspection.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Special Term correctly denied the motion. We have consistently held that there is to be broad disclosure in actions in which equitable distribution is sought, and each party is entitled to a searching exploration of the other spouse’s assets, both to aid in valuation and to uncover potential hidden assets (see, Litman v Litman, 123 AD2d 310; Charpentier v Charpentier, 114 AD2d 923; Kaye v Kaye, 102 AD2d 682). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.2d 637, 510 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gape-v-gape-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack