From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kay v. Kay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 29, 1996
223 A.D.2d 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

January 29, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In September 1991, the plaintiff Steven Kay and the defendant Herbert Kay entered into an agreement in which Herbert Kay sold his plumbing business to Steven Kay, including the business's name and customer list. Steven Kay subsequently brought this action alleging, inter alia, that Herbert Kay had resumed working as a plumber under his former business name and that he was soliciting customers from the list that he had sold to Steven Kay.

Although income tax returns are generally not subject to discovery in civil actions ( see, Consentino v Schwartz, 155 A.D.2d 640; Briton v Knott Hotels Corp., 111 A.D.2d 62; Mayo, Lynch Assocs. v Fine, 123 A.D.2d 607), we agree with the Supreme Court's conclusion that Steven Kay is entitled to disclosure of Herbert Kay's income tax returns. Despite Steven Kay's requests, Herbert Kay has failed to provide any documentation of his business income for the years in question, which is relevant to Steven Kay's claim that Herbert Kay diverted business away from Steven Kay in violation of their agreement. Under these circumstances, we find no improvident exercise of discretion in directing Herbert Kay to produce the documents in question ( see, e.g., Kornblatt v Jaguar Cars, 172 A.D.2d 590).

The answer includes a counterclaim to recover damages for defamation, but does not include a request for injunctive or declaratory relief. Because Herbert Kay has an adequate remedy at law, he is not entitled to a preliminary injunction limiting Steven Kay's use of his name ( see, CPLR 6301; U.S. Transp. Sys. v Marc 1, 210 A.D.2d 316; Betesh v Jemal, 209 A.D.2d 568).

Although the defendants argue that the cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract should have been dismissed for failure to state a cause of action, the complaint does not contain such a cause of action. Moreover, to the extent that the causes of action in the complaint rely upon the terms of the parties' agreement, they are sufficient to support the relief sought. O'Brien, J.P., Sullivan, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kay v. Kay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 29, 1996
223 A.D.2d 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Kay v. Kay

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN KAY et al., Respondents, v. HERBERT KAY et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 29, 1996

Citations

223 A.D.2d 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
637 N.Y.S.2d 446

Citing Cases

Reintsema v. Johnson

Courts do not allow an adversary to "freely roam" through an opponent's financial records, JFK Family Ltd.…

Ramos v. Madison Square Garden Corp.

Based solely on an analysis of "whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Leon…