Handel v. Handel
| Decision Date | 04 March 1970 |
| Citation | 309 N.Y.S.2d 599,258 N.E.2d 94,26 N.Y.2d 853 |
| Parties | , 258 N.E.2d 94 In the Matter of Estelle Davis HANDEL, Respondent, v. Bernard HANDEL, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 32 A.D.2d 946, 304 N.Y.S.2d 76.
Paul, Weiss, Goldberg, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York City (Martin Kleinbard, Mark H. Alcott, New York City, Lloyd L. Rosenthal, Poughkeepsie, of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Nathaniel Rubin, Poughkeepsie, for respondent-appellant.
Divorced wife brought proceeding to modify support obligations of divorced husband in a separation agreement, which had been incorporated into a Mexican divorce decree.
The Family Court, Dutchess County, rendered an order which denied motion of divorced wife to examine divorced husband before trial.
The Appellate Division reversed the order of the Family Court, on the law and the facts, granted the motion, and held that the substantial increase in the financial condition of the divorced husband was an independent ground sufficient to support an increase in support of children, and that since substantial increase of means of divorced husband could be the sole justification for increasing support of the children, it was an abuse of discretion on part of Family Court to condition examination of resources of divorced husband on preliminary showing that needs of children had increased.
The divorced husband appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that Family Court has discretion to require a prima facie demonstration of changed circumstances of children before allowing a discovery and inspection of finances of divorced husband, and that requiring divorced husband to make a prima facie demonstration of changed circumstances of children before allowing a discovery and inspection of finances should be the public policy of all Family Courts.
Order affirmed, with costs, and the question certified answered in the affirmative in the following memorandum: The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the affirmative on the ground that respondent-appellant failed to move for a protective order under CPLR 3122 or to show cause why his failure to so move was excusable (Zeif v. Zeif, 31 A.D.2d 625, 295 N.Y.S.2d 503; Coffey v. Orbachs, Inc., 22 A.D.2d 317, 319--320, 254 N.Y.S.2d 596), and neither the Appellate Division nor the Family Court exercised discretion to excuse...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mosca v. Pensky
...day time limit embodied in CPLR 3122 must be complied with or the item is discoverable unless privileged (Mtr. of Handel v. Handel, 26 N.Y.2d 853, 309 N.Y.S.2d 599, 258 N.E.2d 94; Zeif v. Zeif, 31 A.D.2d 625, 295 N.Y.S.2d 503; Coffey v. Orbachs, 22 A.D.2d 317, 254 N.Y.S.2d 596; Salmonsen v.......
-
Kern v. Kern
...distinguishes the cases cited in petitioner's memorandum, Handel v. Handel, 32 A.D.2d 946, 304 N.Y.S.2d 76, aff'd. 26 N.Y.2d 853, 309 N.Y.S.2d 599, 258 N.E.2d 94, Schwartz v. Schwartz, 48 Misc.2d 859, 265 N.Y.S.2d 820, and Rudnick v. Rudnick, 55 Misc.2d 532, 285 N.Y.S.2d 996 since those cas......
-
Chariff v. Carl
... ... Eisen, 48 A.D.2d 652, 653, 367 N.Y.S.2d 554; Matter of Delli Veneri v. Delli Veneri, 40 A.D.2d 735, 336 N.Y.S.2d 474; Matter of Handel v. Handel, 32 A.D.2d 946, 947, 304 N.Y.S.2d 76, affd 26 N.Y.2d 853, 309 N.Y.S.2d 599, 258 N.E.2d 94; see also, Matter of McFarlane v. McFarlane, 182 ... ...
-
Edwards v. Edwards
... ... Eisen, 48 A.D.2d 652, 367 N.Y.S.2d 554, and Matter of Handel v. Handel, 32 A.D.2d 946, 304 N.Y.S.2d 76, affd., 26 N.Y.2d 853, 309 N.Y.S.2d 599, 258 N.E.2d 94, were dispositive. However, the Court of Appeals, ... ...