From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gape v. Gape

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 31, 1986
125 A.D.2d 637 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

December 31, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hurley, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Special Term correctly denied the motion. We have consistently held that there is to be broad disclosure in actions in which equitable distribution is sought, and each party is entitled to a searching exploration of the other spouse's assets, both to aid in valuation and to uncover potential hidden assets (see, Litman v. Litman, 123 A.D.2d 310; Charpentier v. Charpentier, 114 A.D.2d 923; Kaye v. Kaye, 102 A.D.2d 682). Thompson, J.P., Brown, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Gape v. Gape

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 31, 1986
125 A.D.2d 637 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Gape v. Gape

Case Details

Full title:JOY B. GAPE, Appellant, v. CYRIL GAPE, Respondent

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

Date published: Dec 31, 1986

Citations

125 A.D.2d 637 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Kramer v. Kramer

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or…

G.P. v. S.S.

Generally, there should be broad financial disclosure in matrimonial actions in which equitable distribution…