Frankel v. Frankel

• Decision Date: 08 July 1982
• Citation: 453 N.Y.S.2d 265,89 A.D.2d 654
• Parties: Lila FRANKEL, Respondent, v. Leonard FRANKEL, Defendant; Bernard A. Frankel et al., Nonparty Witnesses, Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 265

453 N.Y.S.2d 265

89 A.D.2d 654

Lila FRANKEL, Respondent, v. Leonard FRANKEL, Defendant Bernard A. Frankel et al., Nonparty Witnesses, Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

July 8, 1982.

Barry R. Eisenberg, White Plains, for appellants.

Stephen L. Oppenheim, Monticello, for respondent.

Before MAIN, J. P., and MIKOLL, YESAWICH, WEISS and LEVINE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered February 1, 1982 in Sullivan County, which required that nonparty witnesses be examined concerning any aspect of the financial affairs of defendant in whatever manner they have acquired this information for the period from 1973 to the time depositions are held.

Since 1975, plaintiff has been attempting to enforce an order directing defendant to pay her $75 per week support. Defendant claims that since November, 1975 he has been unemployed and living on an allowance of $5 per week from his parents, and he has ignored the support order despite the fact that several judgments and contempt orders have been entered against him. In order for plaintiff to ascertain defendant's earnings, on March 12, 1977, Special Term issued an order directing defendant's parents and two of their corporations (appellants) to appear for examination concerning their knowledge of defendant's financial affairs. Appellants avoided appearing until October 21, 1981, and even then the examination was halted by a dispute over the scope of the order. A further order of Special Term, dated January 26, 1982, directed that discovery against appellants could include questions concerning their knowledge of defendant's financial affairs, including his dealings with all corporations, trusts, partnerships, sole proprietorships, and other entities in which appellants do business or are affiliated, and that it could cover from 1973 to the date on which depositions are held. Appellants have appealed.

Appellants contend that discovery should be limited to 1973-1978, the period of the parties' marriage, and to information concerning the relationship between defendant and the two corporate entities named. However, all matter relevant to satisfaction of a judgment is discoverable (Siemens & Halske, Gmbh. v. Gres, 77 Misc.2d 745, 354 N.Y.S.2d 762, affd. 43 A.D.2d 1021, 353 N.Y.S.2d 395). Moreover, CPLR 3101 (subd. ) and CPLR 3120 (subd. ) "unmistakably permit disclosure from non-party witnesses" where the court has...