Rubinfeld v. Zwerling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rubinfeld v. Zwerling

261 A.D.2d 382, 687 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4511

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

DecidedMay 3, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 382 (Rubinfeld v. Zwerling) 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

Rubinfeld v. Zwerling, 261 A.D.2d 382, 687 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4511 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), dated March 26, 1998, which denied their motion to compel the disclosure of the plaintiff’s New York State and Federal income tax returns.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well established that the “[c]ourts do not favor disclosure of income tax returns without some showing that the particular information in tax returns has some specific application to the case or that other sources of information are likely to be inaccessible or unproductive” (Active Fire Sprinkler Corp. v American Home Assur. Co., 203 AD2d 218; see also, Walter Karl, Inc. v Wood, 161 AD2d 704, 705; Zimmer v Cathedral School, 204 AD2d 538, 539). Here, the defendants failed to [383]*383sustain their burden of showing that the disclosure of the plaintiffs tax returns was warranted (see, Grossman v Lacoff, 168 AD2d 484; BRS & W Assocs. v Grace & Co., 156 AD2d 249; Law Offs. of Bernard v DiLorenzo, 80 AD2d 701). Accordingly, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the defendants’ motion. S. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), dated March 26, 1998, which denied their motion to compel the disclosure of the plaintiff’s New York State and Federal income tax returns.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well established that the “[c]ourts do not favor disclosure of income tax returns without some showing that the particular information in tax returns has some specific application to the case or that other sources of information are likely to be inaccessible or unproductive” (Active Fire Sprinkler Corp. v American Home Assur. Co., 203 AD2d 218; see also, Walter Karl, Inc. v Wood, 161 AD2d 704, 705; Zimmer v Cathedral School, 204 AD2d 538, 539). Here, the defendants failed to [383]*383sustain their burden of showing that the disclosure of the plaintiffs tax returns was warranted (see, Grossman v Lacoff, 168 AD2d 484; BRS & W Assocs. v Grace & Co., 156 AD2d 249; Law Offs. of Bernard v DiLorenzo, 80 AD2d 701). Accordingly, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the defendants’ motion. S. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 382, 687 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rubinfeld-v-zwerling-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack