Lennon v. Lennon

• Decision Date: 24 November 1986
• Citation: 508 N.Y.S.2d 507,124 A.D.2d 788
• Parties: Hope Frances LENNON, Appellant-Respondent, v. Edward Joseph LENNON, Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 507

508 N.Y.S.2d 507

124 A.D.2d 788

Hope Frances LENNON, Appellant-Respondent, v. Edward Joseph LENNON, Respondent-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Nov. 24, 1986.

Gilberg & Gilberg, Mount Vernon (David C. Gilberg, of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

Katz, Kleinbaum, Farber & Karson, White Plains (Steven T. Lowe and Barry M. Karson, of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Before MANGANO, J.P., and NIEHOFF, RUBIN and SPATT, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In consolidated actions for divorce and ancillary relief, (1) the plaintiff wife appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Beisner, J.), dated June 10, 1985, as amended October 15, 1985 as (a) granted the defendant husband's motion for a protective order to the extent of directing him to "produce all those records requested of his holdings" only up "to the year 1980", and (b) in effect, denied that branch of her cross motion which was to dismiss the defendant's claim that any assets acquired between 1970 and 1980 are separate property, (2) the husband cross-appeals from so much of the order as (a) denied so much of his motion for a protective order which sought to prohibit discovery as to any items and materials relating to his financial condition and assets after May 13, 1970, and (b) directed him to furnish a sworn affidavit as to those items and materials demanded which were not in his control or which had been previously supplied by him, and (3) the parties cross-appeal from an order of the same court, dated November 7, 1985, which amended the order dated June 10, 1985, as amended October 15, 1985, by vacating the provision which authorized the wife to apply for the appointment of a judicial hearing officer to supervise disclosure and provided that in the event of the husband's noncompliance with court-ordered discovery, the wife was to file a note of issue "for an immediate hearing on the discovery issues".

Justice Rubin has been substituted for the late Justice Gibbons (see, 22 NYCRR 670.2).

ORDERED that the order dated June 10, 1985, as amended on October 15, 1985, is modified, by deleting therefrom those provisions which granted the husband's motion for a protective order to the extent of directing him to "produce all those records requested of his holdings", only up "to the year 1980", and by substituting therefor a provision denying his motion for a protective order and directing him to produce all those records requested of his holdings, up to the present time. As so modified, the order dated June 10, 1985, as amended October 15, 1985, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further ORDERED that the order dated November 7, 1985, is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that no costs or disbursements are awarded. The time in which the husband must respond to the wife's notices for discovery and inspection dated April 1, 1985, and April 2, 1985, respectively, is extended until 30 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.

Although Special Term correctly recognized that the parties and the court were entitled to "a liberal and broad discovery process", it erred in limiting the discovery sought by the wife up "to the year 1980", i.e., when the instant actions for divorce were commenced. As this court stated in Lee v. Lee, ...