(DOWNLOAD) "John A. Colella v. Rose Colella" by Supreme Court of New York " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: John A. Colella v. Rose Colella
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 21, 1984
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 58 KB
Description
In an action for divorce, the defendant wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Di Tucci, J.), entered July 11, 1983, which denied her motion to strike the action from the calendar so that she could conduct an examination before trial of the plaintiff husband. Order modified by deleting therefrom the words "is denied" and substituting therefor a provision granting defendants motion only to the extent of permitting her to conduct an examination before trial of plaintiff on condition that defendants attorney personally pay to plaintiff the sum of $750. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The payment of the $750 shall be made within 20 days after service upon the defendants attorney of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry. The examination before trial shall be held within 15 days after payment of the $750 at a time and place to be set forth in a written notice of at least 10 days to be given by defendant or at such time and place as the parties may agree. If the condition is not complied with, order affirmed, with costs. The compulsory financial disclosure provision of the Equitable Distribution Law (Domestic Relations Law, § 236, part B, subd 4) evinces a legislative intent that both parties to a matrimonial action give full and fair disclosure of finances which is not limited to the sworn statement of net worth (Domestic Relations Law, § 236, part B, subd 4; 22 NYCRR part 117; 22 NYCRR 699.11), but includes any appropriate disclosure device authorized in CPLR article 31. "Indeed, the use of an examination before trial to supplement the official form affidavit provides a mechanism with which to guarantee the trustworthiness of the affidavit and to enforce its integrity" (Garrel v Garrel, 59 A.D.2d 885, 886). [99 A.D.2d 794 Page 795]