Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rosner v. Rosner

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT


May 25, 2010

MARIANNE ROSNER, RESPONDENT,
v.
ANDREW ROSNER, APPELLANT.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brown, J.), dated December 12, 2008, as granted that branch of his motion pursuant to CPLR 3101, 3124, and 3126 which was to compel financial discovery from the plaintiff up until the time of trial only to the extent of directing the neutral forensic evaluator, David Gresen, to conduct an evaluation of a business entity known as Napoli Marble and Granite for the period from June 28, 2006, to December 12, 2008, and otherwise denied that branch of the motion, and denied those branches of his motion which were for leave to obtain discovery of certain financial records and documents from third parties up until the time of trial and to compel disclosure of unredacted records.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO & PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.

(Index No. 201865/06)

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendant's motion which was to compel the plaintiff to provide him with financial discovery up until the time of trial, but only to the extent of directing the neutral forensic evaluator, David Gresen, to conduct an evaluation of Napoli Marble and Granite, the plaintiff's business, for the period from June 28, 2006, to December 12, 2008 (see Sanford v Sanford, 146 AD2d 622; Tallering v Tallering, 129 AD2d 696). Moreover, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying those branches of the defendant's motion which were for leave to obtain discovery of certain financial records and documents from third parties up until the time of trial and to compel discovery of certain unredacted records (see Provident Life and Cas. Ins. Co. v Brittenham, 284 AD2d 518; Dunsmere v Paprin, 114 AD2d 836, 837).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

RIVERA, J.P., FLORIO, ANGIOLILLO and LOTT, JJ., concur.

20100525

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.