Goldsmith v. Goldsmith
| Citation | 184 A.D.2d 619,584 N.Y.S.2d 902 |
| Parties | Kathy GOLDSMITH, Respondent-Appellant, v. Harvey GOLDSMITH, Appellant-Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 15 June 1992 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Capetola & Doddato, Williston Park (Judith A. Ackerman, of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Parola, Feuerstein, Gross & Marino, Wantagh (Barry J. Gross, on the brief), for respondent-appellant.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and BRACKEN, O'BRIEN and SANTUCCI, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), entered May 30, 1990, which, inter alia, (1) denied that branch of his motion which was for authorization to sell a vacant condominium, (2) denied his application to compel the plaintiff wife to execute a confidentiality agreement with respect to disclosure, and (3) failed to consider his application to compel the plaintiff wife to vacate the parties' infant daughter's room, and the plaintiff cross-appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of an order of the same court, which, inter alia, (1) limited her maintenance to $300 per week pendente lite and child support to $100 per week pendente lite, (2) limited her notice for discovery and inspection and interrogatories to a period of five years prior to the commencement of the action, (3) limited inquiry into those corporations in which the defendant had less than a majority interest, (4) limited her interim counsel fees to $2,000, subject to adjustment, if appropriate, upon the equitable distribution of property, and (5) denied her request for exclusive use of the master bedroom and an automobile.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kooper v. Kooper
...of the marital assets is deemed critical if the trial court is to properly distribute the marital assets” ( Goldsmith v. Goldsmith, 184 A.D.2d 619, 620, 584 N.Y.S.2d 902; see Pagello v. Pagello, 17 A.D.3d 428, 429, 793 N.Y.S.2d 447; Kaye v. Kaye, 102 A.D.2d at 691, 478 N.Y.S.2d 324). The tw......
-
Manditch v. Manditch
...of the martial assets is deemed critical if the trial court is to properly distribute the marital assets” ( Goldsmith v. Goldsmith, 184 A.D.2d 619, 620, 584 N.Y.S.2d 902; see Kooper v. Kooper, 74 A.D.3d 6, 11, 901 N.Y.S.2d 312). Moreover, the disclosure sought by the defendant is “material ......
-
Rodolico v. Rodolico
...assets is deemed critical if the trial court is to properly distribute the marital assets” [971 N.Y.S.2d 65]( Goldsmith v. Goldsmith, 184 A.D.2d 619, 620, 584 N.Y.S.2d 902;see Pagello v. Pagello, 17 A.D.3d 428, 429, 793 N.Y.S.2d 447;Pechman v. Pechman, 303 A.D.2d 479, 480, 757 N.Y.S.2d 56;K......
- Ghazibayat v. State