From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lichtman v. Gibbons

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 27, 2006
30 A.D.3d 319 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

8926N.

June 27, 2006.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered November 22, 2005, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff's motion to compel disclosure, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Weinberg, Gross Pergament LLP, Garden City (Harvey Weinberg of counsel), for appellant.

Law Office of Timothy J. McInnis, New York (Richard F. Bernstein of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Friedman, Williams and Malone, JJ., concur.


The validity of defendant's business deductions on Schedule C of his 2002 income tax return are irrelevant to plaintiff's claim that most of the "nonemployee compensation" reflected on a 2002 IRS Form 1099-Misc she issued to defendant was fraudulently induced by false promises of marriage. Extrinsic evidence may not be used to impeach credibility on a collateral issue ( Halloran v. Virginia Chems., 41 NY2d 386, 390). Any impeachment value of any false statements that defendant may have made to the IRS are far removed from the issues in the case, and clearly outweighed by the strong policy disfavoring disclosure of tax returns ( see Matthews Indus. Piping Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 114 AD2d 772 [1985]).


Summaries of

Lichtman v. Gibbons

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 27, 2006
30 A.D.3d 319 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Lichtman v. Gibbons

Case Details

Full title:MARILYN LICHTMAN, Appellant, v. JOSEPH G. GIBBONS, Respondent

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

Date published: Jun 27, 2006

Citations

30 A.D.3d 319 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 5135
817 N.Y.S.2d 282

Citing Cases

Safir v. Charm City Hous., LLC

More fundamentally, under the circumstances of this case where defendants allegedly owe plaintiff money which…

Mura v. Mura

Also in appeal No. 1, defendant contends that, at the hearing on postjudgment child support arrears, Supreme…