From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kirshner v. Kirshner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 26, 1959
7 A.D.2d 202 (N.Y. App. Div. 1959)

Summary

In Kirshner v. Kirshner (7 A.D.2d 202) the court said (p. 203) as follows: "The granting or denial of a motion for examination of a husband before trial as to his financial status should be left to the sound discretion of the Special Term."

Summary of this case from Kennedy v. Kennedy

Opinion

January 26, 1959.

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County, MARK A. COSTANTINO, J.

Carmine A. Ventiera for appellant.

Abraham Bisgaier for respondent.


This is an action for divorce. The parties were married in 1947 and have a 10-year-old daughter. Undenied by respondent are factual allegations in the complaint that he has been living with another woman from 1955 to the "present time". Appellant, nevertheless, must satisfactorily prove adultery (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1150).

We have heretofore denied, as a matter of policy, examinations of husbands as to assets and income in matrimonial actions ( Safrin v. Safrin, 205 App. Div. 628; Horsch v. Horsch, 206 App. Div. 710; Hutaff v. Hutaff, 208 App. Div. 745; Woods v. Woods, 228 App. Div. 842; Fried v. Fried, 230 App. Div. 708; Schultz v. Schultz, 258 App. Div. 971; Augustin v. Augustin, 277 App. Div. 777) unless special circumstances were presented ( Goshin v. Goshin, 281 App. Div. 979; Johnson v. Johnson, 285 App. Div. 900). The denials were based on the ground that support was not in issue until a wife had established her right to judgment ( Van Valkenburgh v. Van Valkenburgh, 149 App. Div. 482). This rule is not consonant with present practice ( Jasne v. Jasne, 10 Misc.2d 59). The granting or denial of a motion for examination of a husband before trial as to his financial status should be left to the sound discretion of the Special Term.

The instant case is one in which the Special Term in its discretion should have permitted the examination of the husband as to his financial resources.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion should be granted.

NOLAN, P.J., UGHETTA, HALLINAN and KLEINFELD, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted.

Settle order on notice.


Summaries of

Kirshner v. Kirshner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 26, 1959
7 A.D.2d 202 (N.Y. App. Div. 1959)

In Kirshner v. Kirshner (7 A.D.2d 202) the court said (p. 203) as follows: "The granting or denial of a motion for examination of a husband before trial as to his financial status should be left to the sound discretion of the Special Term."

Summary of this case from Kennedy v. Kennedy

In Kirshner v. Kirshner (7 A.D.2d 202), the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed its previous holdings denying examinations before trial generally in matrimonial actions and adopted a new rule saying: "We have heretofore denied, as a matter of policy, examinations of husbands as to assets and income in matrimonial actions [citing cases] unless special circumstances were presented [citing cases].

Summary of this case from Hall v. Hall
Case details for

Kirshner v. Kirshner

Case Details

Full title:HELEN KIRSHNER, Appellant, v. HENRY KIRSHNER, Respondent

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

Date published: Jan 26, 1959

Citations

7 A.D.2d 202 (N.Y. App. Div. 1959)
182 N.Y.S.2d 286

Citing Cases

Campbell v. Campbell

In denying the motion the Special Term stated that "Should the trial elicit any fact indicating a lack of…

Kennedy v. Kennedy

In the Second Department a more liberal attitude towards examinations prevails, but even in the Second…