Opinion
2013-10-24
Nathaniel KLIPPER, et al., Plaintiffs, Drew Doscher, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. LIBERTY HELICOPTERS, INC., et al., Defendants–Appellants, Liberty Helicopter Tours, Inc., et al., Defendants.
Jones Hirsch Connors Miller & Bull P.C., New York (Richard Imbrogno of counsel), for appellants. Ryan & Conlon, LLP, New York (Kieran J. Conlon of counsel), for respondents.
Jones Hirsch Connors Miller & Bull P.C., New York (Richard Imbrogno of counsel), for appellants. Ryan & Conlon, LLP, New York (Kieran J. Conlon of counsel), for respondents.
SWEENY, J.P., RENWICK, FEINMAN, CLARK, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered May 1, 2013, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants Liberty Helicopters, Inc., Liberty Helicopters, Inc. (N.Y.), Meridian Consulting Co., Inc. and Paul Tramontana's motion to compel plaintiff Doscher to produce any transcripts of his testimony in his divorce action, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to grant the motion to the extent of compelling Doscher to produce to the motion court, for in camera review, those portions of the transcript of his divorce action, and documents related thereto, that reveal information relevant to his claims for lost earnings and future revenue, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
By asserting a claim for lost earnings and future revenue, plaintiff Doscher put his financial status in issue, and waived the protection afforded by Domestic Relations Law § 235(1) ( see Janecka v. Casey, 121 A.D.2d 28, 508 N.Y.S.2d 451 [1st Dept.1986] ). Portions of transcripts and related documents that reflect Doscher's financial status before the accident are material and necessary to defendants in their defense of this action ( see Janecka, 121 A.D.2d at 32, 508 N.Y.S.2d 451;CPLR 3101[a] ). Upon its in camera review of these materials, the motion court will be able to tailor Doscher's production to defendants so as to balance his right to privacy with their right to relevant information ( see Solomon v. Meyer, 103 A.D.3d 1025, 1026, 962 N.Y.S.2d 401 [3d Dept.2013] ).
We have considered defendants' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.