From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

De La Roche v. De La Roche

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 9, 1995
213 A.D.2d 208 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

March 9, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.).


"In a matrimonial action, under equitable distribution and Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (4), broad financial disclosure is necessary and required", and such discovery is not restricted to the parties but is obtainable from appropriate third parties (Gellman v. Gellman, 160 A.D.2d 265, 267). Such discovery is permitted of an employer, even where there is no equity interest, especially where, as here, plaintiff has frustrated direct discovery (see, Lawson v. Lawson, 194 A.D.2d 389) and where it appears plaintiff may have "other financial interests" in the entity (Colin v. Colin, 113 A.D.2d 817, 818). Defendant provided ample evidence to support the discovery requests, and thus the court was within its discretion in denying the motions to quash the subpoenas.

Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

De La Roche v. De La Roche

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 9, 1995
213 A.D.2d 208 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

De La Roche v. De La Roche

Case Details

Full title:GERMAN DE LA ROCHE, Plaintiff, v. NOHRA DE LA ROCHE, Respondent. LOMBARD…

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

Date published: Mar 9, 1995

Citations

213 A.D.2d 208 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
624 N.Y.S.2d 1

Citing Cases

Feldman v. Feldman

Indeed, timely service of the answer is indicated by a litigation history that involved three motions by…