Pentecost v. Pentecost

125 A.D.2d 558, 510 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62851
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 22, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 125 A.D.2d 558 (Pentecost v. Pentecost) 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
Pentecost v. Pentecost, 125 A.D.2d 558, 510 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62851 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), dated October 30, 1985, as [559]*559denied his application for a protective order to prohibit discovery of his postseparation agreement financial records.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the defendant’s motion for a protective order is granted to the extent of limiting the financial records he is to produce at deposition to those items concerning his financial condition from January 1980 through May 1981, the date of execution of the separation agreement between the parties. The deposition of the defendant at which he is to produce the items in question shall be held at a time and place to be set forth in a notice of not less than 10 days to be given by the plaintiff.

The defendant’s present financial condition is not relevant to the plaintiffs claim that the separation agreement is null and void on the ground of fraud or unconscionability and will not become an issue unless and until the separation agreement or its financial provisions is set aside (see, Schisler v Schisler, 106 AD2d 441; Wiecek v Wiecek, 104 AD2d 935; Potvin v Potvin, 92 AD2d 562). Moreover, the plaintiff has not set forth sufficient allegations with respect to her demand for increased child support to warrant discovery of the defendant’s present financial condition (see, Lazarus v Lazarus, 114 AD2d 1012). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Pincus v. Lipson
73 A.D.3d 726 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Packer v. Packer
233 A.D.2d 261 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Reiter v. Reiter
186 A.D.2d 641 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
DeSantis v. DeSantis
182 A.D.2d 1107 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
125 A.D.2d 558, 510 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pentecost-v-pentecost-nyappdiv-1986.