From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goldsmith v. Goldsmith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 15, 1992
184 A.D.2d 619 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

June 15, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.).


Ordered that the order is modified, by deleting the provision thereof which limited the disclosure demanded in the plaintiff's notice for discovery and inspection and her first set of interrogatories to a period of five years prior to the commencement of the action, and substituting therefor a provision permitting disclosure pursuant to the notice for discovery and inspection and the first set of interrogatories for the entire period of the marriage; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the defendant's time to comply with the notice for discovery and inspection and to answer the first set of interrogatories is extended until 30 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.

The plaintiff correctly claims that she should be permitted to obtain disclosure of financial data spanning the entire marriage. Broad pretrial disclosure enabling both spouses to obtain necessary information regarding the value and nature of the marital assets is deemed critical if the trial court is to properly distribute the marital assets (see, Kaye v. Kaye, 102 A.D.2d 682). Indeed, absent an unreasonable request, the entire financial history of the marriage is open for examination by either party (see, Kaye v. Kaye, supra, at 691; Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B]). We note, however, that discovery with respect to business interests in which the defendant maintained less than a majority interest, was not improvidently restricted (see, Fox v. Fox, 96 A.D.2d 571, 572).

Under the circumstances of this case, we do not find the pendente lite award of maintenance to have been an improvident exercise of discretion. Any perceived inequity in the award can be remedied by proceeding expeditiously to trial (see, Fink v Fink, 182 A.D.2d 669; Samuelsen v. Samuelsen, 124 A.D.2d 650, 651).

We have reviewed the parties' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, O'Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Goldsmith v. Goldsmith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 15, 1992
184 A.D.2d 619 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Goldsmith v. Goldsmith

Case Details

Full title:KATHY GOLDSMITH, Respondent-Appellant, v. HARVEY GOLDSMITH…

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

Date published: Jun 15, 1992

Citations

184 A.D.2d 619 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
584 N.Y.S.2d 902

Citing Cases

Shumakh v. Shumakh

The court finds that defendant is not entitled to an order either striking the subject note of issue or…

Rodolico v. Rodolico

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs. In a divorce action, the…