Silverman v. Silverman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Silverman v. Silverman

219 A.D.2d 550, 632 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9603

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 219 A.D.2d 550 (Silverman v. Silverman) 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

Silverman v. Silverman, 219 A.D.2d 550, 632 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9603 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered May 19, 1995, which denied plaintiffs motion for a stay of all aspects of the divorce trial, including fault and economic issues, to permit her to complete discovery and adequately prepare for trial, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Parties in a matrimonial action are entitled to exploration of each other’s assets and financial dealing, including their interests in business entities (see, Lobatto v Lobatto, 109 AD2d 697, 699-700). Here, the Special Referee reported that he had reviewed the documentation and found that, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, plaintiff had received all but minor discovery items, and thus the court properly denied the stay. Nor did the order bifurcate the trial. Further, counsel has now had sufficient time to review the deposition transcripts and documentation. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered May 19, 1995, which denied plaintiffs motion for a stay of all aspects of the divorce trial, including fault and economic issues, to permit her to complete discovery and adequately prepare for trial, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Parties in a matrimonial action are entitled to exploration of each other’s assets and financial dealing, including their interests in business entities (see, Lobatto v Lobatto, 109 AD2d 697, 699-700). Here, the Special Referee reported that he had reviewed the documentation and found that, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, plaintiff had received all but minor discovery items, and thus the court properly denied the stay. Nor did the order bifurcate the trial. Further, counsel has now had sufficient time to review the deposition transcripts and documentation. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.D.2d 550, 632 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silverman-v-silverman-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack