Legal Opinion
Jasne v. Jasne
New York Supreme Court
Decided October 23, 1952PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWalter, J.
A general examination before trial of a defendant in a matrimonial action ordinarily is not allowed (Tausik v. Tausik, 280 App. Div. 887; Shatz v. Shatz, 248 App. Div. 594; Immerman v. Immerman, 230 App. Div. 458; Appelbaum v. Appelbaum, 273 App. Div. 966; Levi v. Levi, 182 Misc. 445; Whittaker v. Whittaker, 126 Misc. 640). The factors and considerations which led to the adoption of that policy have no application to an examination of a defendant husband confined to his assets and income. Nevertheless, it has been held that a plaintiff wife in such an action may not examine defendant husband…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Harding v. . HardingNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
- Harding v. HardingAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
- Van Valkenburgh v. Van ValkenburghAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
- Tausik v. TausikAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1952
- Boisnot v. WilsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Berlin v. BerlinNew York Supreme Court · 1959
- Vlassopulos v. VlassopulosNew York Supreme Court · 1954
- De Raffele v. De RaffeleNew York Supreme Court · 1969
- Bramer v. BramerNew York Supreme Court · 1959
- Kirshner v. KirshnerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1959
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.