Opinion
October 7, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Miller, J.
Present — Denman, P.J., Green, Balio, Boehm and Davis, JJ.
Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff's cross motion for an order directing that defendant provide plaintiff with an authorization for the disclosure of defendant's personal income tax returns for tax years other than the tax years 1982 through 1986. Plaintiff failed to make the requisite demonstration that those tax returns were indispensable to this litigation and unavailable from other sources (see, Gordon v Grossman, 183 A.D.2d 669; Grossman v Lacoff, 168 A.D.2d 484, 485; Consentino v Schwartz, 155 A.D.2d 640, 641; Mayo, Lynch Assocs. v Fine, 123 A.D.2d 607, 608; Niagara Falls Urban Renewal Agency v Friedman, 55 A.D.2d 830).
Furthermore, Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff's cross motion to compel defendant to answer questions at an examination before trial relating to his years of operation of plaintiff's business without any time limitation. It would also have been improper to direct that all objections to questions to be asked at that examination before trial be reserved for the trial court without knowing what those questions might be (see, White v Martins, 100 A.D.2d 805). Had this procedure been ordered, defendant would have been deprived of the right to apply for a protective order (see, CPLR 3113 [b]; White v Martins, supra).