Summary
affirming lower court's denial of defendants' motion to inspect plaintiff's matrimonial file in personal injury case on grounds that defendants failed to demonstrate a sufficient nexus between marital proceedings and the plaintiff's alleged injury to warrant overcoming the statutory protection
Summary of this case from Opn. No. 2002-20Opinion
March 4, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Given the plaintiff's concession that she is not making any claim, direct or otherwise, that the termination of her marriage is related to the subject incident and injury which is the basis of this present action, we affirm the order insofar as appealed from. The defendants have failed to demonstrate a sufficient nexus between the marital proceedings and the plaintiff's alleged injury to warrant overcoming the statutory protection accorded to testimony and pleadings in a matrimonial action ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 235; Harvey v Mazal Am. Partners, 179 A.D.2d 1, 9; cf., Janecka v Casey, 121 A.D.2d 28). Rosenblatt, J.P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.