Armitage v. Armitage

Decision Date20 December 1985
Citation115 A.D.2d 945,497 N.Y.S.2d 520
PartiesRobert B. ARMITAGE, Appellant, v. Shannon B. ARMITAGE, Respondent. Fourth Department
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Webster & Chase by Frank Webster, Rochester, for appellant.

Pheterson & Pheterson by Steven Pheterson, Rochester, for respondent.

Before DILLON, P.J., and CALLAHAN, DENMAN, PINE and SCHNEPP, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Plaintiff-husband appeals from so much of an order of Matrimonial Special Term as, inter alia, temporarily directed him to pay defendant-wife maintenance of $175.00 per week, child support of $200.00 per week, all costs of maintaining the marital residence, plus all current and outstanding debts and credit card bills. We have repeatedly held that the remedy for any claimed inequity in awards of temporary alimony, child support or maintenance is a speedy trial where the respective finances of the parties can be properly ascertained and a permanent award may be made on the evidence (Williams v. Williams, 105 A.D.2d 1160, 482 N.Y.S.2d 715; Pleto v. Pleto, 98 A.D.2d 994, 470 N.Y.S.2d 188). While not deviating from this strong policy, it was improvident to direct plaintiff to pay all future credit card charges. The order is therefore modified to delete such direction with respect to all charges incurred subsequent to the date of the order to be entered hereon.

We do not find the notice to produce to be overly broad. CPLR 3101(a) requires full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof. We perceive no rational basis for requiring less than full disclosure in matrimonial actions (Lemke v. Lemke, 100 A.D.2d 735, 473 N.Y.S.2d 646).

Order unanimously modified on the law and facts, and as modified affirmed without costs.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Griffith v. Appeals Bd. of Administrative Adjudication Bureau, State Dept. of Motor Vehicles
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 20, 1985
  • Sanford v. Sanford
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • January 17, 1989
    ... ... Since full disclosure is warranted of all evidence "material and necessary" in determining these issues (see, Armitage v. Armitage, 115 A.D.2d 945, 497 N.Y.S.2d 520) and discovery regarding these properties after the commencement of the instant action may be relevant ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT