Tucker v. Tucker

94 A.D.2d 793, 462 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18260
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Tucker v. Tucker. Read the opinion of the Court — 97 A.D.2d 461

Opinion

— In a divorce action, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kunzeman, J.), dated December 16, 1982, as granted the plaintiff wife’s motion for an examination before trial. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. The plaintiff has demonstrated “unusual and unanticipated conditions” warranting further disclosure (see 22 NYCRR 675.7). Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

Tucker v. Tucker, 94 A.D.2d 793, 462 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18260 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

94 A.D.2d 793 (Tucker v. Tucker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.