Braverman v. Braverman

• Decision Date: 17 September 1952
• Docket Number: No. M--1443,M--1443
• Citation: 21 N.J.Super. 367,91 A.2d 226
• Parties: BRAVERMAN v. BRAVERMAN.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court

Page 367

21 N.J.Super. 367

91 A.2d 226

BRAVERMAN v.BRAVERMAN.

No. M--1443.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division.

Sept. 17, 1952.

Robert M. Kronman, Passaic, for plaintiff.

Heller & Laiks, Passaic (Aaron Heller, Passaic, appearing), for defendant.

Harry Krieger, Newark, for Milton H. Albert and Abram J. Precker.

HEGARTY, A.M.

In the above action for separate maintenance, plaintiff has served subpoenas Ad testificandum and subpoenas Duces tecum upon Milton H. Albert, a certified public accountant, and upon Abram J. Precker, a real estate expert and attorney.It appears from an earlier affidavit of plaintiff that the services of Messrs. Albert and Precker were retained for her by plaintiff's former attorneys to develop evidence relating to defendant's property, real and personal, and to determine the nature and extent of his holdings, and thus establish the amount of his capital assets, his annual income, and other relevant factors.

Albert and Precker have moved to quash the subpoenas on the ground that they will be required to give expert testimony without the payment of compensation already due them.

It is stated in Stanton v. Rushmore, 112 N.J.L. 115, 169 A. 721(E. & A.1934), and appears to be the holding of Hull v. Plume, 131 N.J.L. 511, 37 A.2d 53(E. & A.1944), that one may not be compelled to give expert testimony unless he shall have voluntarily contracted so to do.These cases also make clear, however, that any one may be compelled to testify as to facts no matter how his knowledge of them was obtained.

I do not think it proper, prior to trial, to determine what kind of testimony plaintiff may seek to elicit from Albert and Precker, and any ruling as to whether, or to what extent, they should be compelled to testify should be reserved until then.It must be borne in mind that in support of plaintiff's motion...