Kaufman v. Kaufman

125 A.D.2d 293, 509 N.Y.S.2d 85, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62556
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 1, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 125 A.D.2d 293 (Kaufman v. Kaufman) 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
Kaufman v. Kaufman, 125 A.D.2d 293, 509 N.Y.S.2d 85, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62556 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

— In an action to set aside a stipulation of settlement, the defendant husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Walsh, J.), entered October 15, 1985, as denied that branch of his motion for a protective order which was to preclude financial disclosure for the period from January 1, 1976, to December 31, 1978.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by granting the defendant’s motion for a protective order to the extent of striking so much of the plaintiff wife’s interrogatories as request information regarding the defendant’s financial condition after May 13, 1977, the date the parties entered into the stipulation of settlement. As so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The defendant’s time to respond to the plaintiff’s interrogatories is extended until 30 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.

So much of the plaintiff’s interrogatories as request informa[294]*294tion regarding the defendant’s financial condition after May 13, 1977, the date the parties entered into the stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated, but not merged, in the judgment of divorce, is premature. The defendant’s financial circumstances after May 13, 1977 are not relevant to the plaintiff’s claim, inter alia, that she was deceived regarding the true extent of her husband’s income at the time the stipulation was entered into, and will not become an issue unless and until the separation agreement or its support provisions have been vacated or set aside (see, Potvin v Potvin, 92 AD2d 562; Wiecek v Wiecek, 104 AD2d 935; Schisler v Schisler, 106 AD2d 441). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Packer v. Packer
233 A.D.2d 261 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Demis v. Demis
150 A.D.2d 835 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Kaufman v. Kaufman
135 A.D.2d 786 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
DeGuire v. DeGuire
125 A.D.2d 360 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
125 A.D.2d 293, 509 N.Y.S.2d 85, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaufman-v-kaufman-nyappdiv-1986.