In re Glazer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Glazer

86 A.D.2d 982

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 1982

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

This text of 86 A.D.2d 982 (In re Glazer) 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

In re Glazer, 86 A.D.2d 982 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Although personal income tax returns are not discoverable until a strong showing of necessity is made, the referee appointed to supervise disclosure should have the power to order the production of tax returns should such a showing develop during the course of discovery. He has not yet required production of the income tax returns and we do not anticipate that he will exercise his broad powers, under CPLR 3104 (subd [c]) in violation of established legal principles. We note, also, that the referee has the authority to maintain the privacy of immaterial portions of the returns (see Krauss v Putterman, 50 AD2d 599). (Appeal from order of Monroe County Surrogate’s Court, Telesca, S. — estate — production of records.) Present — Simons, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Although personal income tax returns are not discoverable until a strong showing of necessity is made, the referee appointed to supervise disclosure should have the power to order the production of tax returns should such a showing develop during the course of discovery. He has not yet required production of the income tax returns and we do not anticipate that he will exercise his broad powers, under CPLR 3104 (subd [c]) in violation of established legal principles. We note, also, that the referee has the authority to maintain the privacy of immaterial portions of the returns (see Krauss v Putterman, 50 AD2d 599). (Appeal from order of Monroe County Surrogate’s Court, Telesca, S. — estate — production of records.) Present — Simons, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D.2d 982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-glazer-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack