Morse v. Morse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morse v. Morse

40 A.D.2d 996, 338 N.Y.S.2d 582, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3153

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

DecidedDecember 11, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 996 (Morse v. Morse) 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

Morse v. Morse, 40 A.D.2d 996, 338 N.Y.S.2d 582, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3153 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for support and maintenance and for reimbursement for expenditures for necessaries, defendant husband appeals from so much of an order of the-Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated May 24, 1972, as granted the branch of his motion which was to vacate plaintiff’s notice to examine defendant before trial, only to the extent of postponing such examination until at least 20 days after plaintiff shall have served a further bill of particulars. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs, and the- branch of defendant’s motion which was to vacate plaintiff’s notice to examine defendant before trial is granted in full. In our opinion, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any “special circumstances” that would entitle her to a pretrial examination of defendant’s financial resources (Campbell v. Campbell, 7 A D 2d 1011). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Gulotta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur; Benjamin, J., not voting.

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

In an action for support and maintenance and for reimbursement for expenditures for necessaries, defendant husband appeals from so much of an order of the-Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated May 24, 1972, as granted the branch of his motion which was to vacate plaintiff’s notice to examine defendant before trial, only to the extent of postponing such examination until at least 20 days after plaintiff shall have served a further bill of particulars. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs, and the- branch of defendant’s motion which was to vacate plaintiff’s notice to examine defendant before trial is granted in full. In our opinion, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any “special circumstances” that would entitle her to a pretrial examination of defendant’s financial resources (Campbell v. Campbell, 7 A D 2d 1011). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Gulotta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur; Benjamin, J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 996, 338 N.Y.S.2d 582, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morse-v-morse-nyappdiv-1972.