Opinion
May 20, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Generally, there should be broad financial disclosure in matrimonial actions in which equitable distribution is sought to enable the parties to ascertain the nature and value of marital assets, as well as to uncover potential hidden assets ( see, Gape v. Gape, 125 A.D.2d 637, 638; Kaye v. Kaye, 102 A.D.2d 682, 686; Fox v. Fox, 96 A.D.2d 571, 572). The plaintiff, however, is not entitled to the extensive discovery she sought from the closely-held family corporation owned by the defendant's parents since she has not yet demonstrated that the defendant has an interest in the corporation (see, Kaye v. Kaye, supra; Fox v. Fox, supra). However, the limited nonparty disclosure directed by the Referee, as confirmed by the Supreme Court, was warranted in this case to assist the plaintiff in ascertaining whether the defendant had an undisclosed ownership interest in the corporation (see, Kaye v. Kaye, supra; Fox v. Fox, supra). Ritter, J.P., Thompson, Hart and McGinity, JJ., concur.