Legal Opinion

Sefranka v. Sefranka

New York Supreme Court

Decided September 4, 1947PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHallinan, J.

In an action for a separation, defendant moves for examination of the plaintiff before trial with respect to his counterclaim for an annulment. Plaintiff objects, generally, that examinations are not usually allowed in matrimonial actions and specifically, as to the form, substance and necessity of the individual items.

The general objection is without merit. As was pointed out in Kotopoulos v. Kotopoulos (53 N. Y. S. 2d 932): “ The rule for*542bidding general examination before trial in matrimonial matters (Shatz v. Shatz, 248 App. Div. 594, 287 N. Y. S. 366; Levi v. Levi, 182 Misc. 445, 44 N. Y.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Mirizio v. MirizioNew York Court of Appeals · 1926
  2. Galligano v. GalliganoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935
  3. Levi v. LeviNew York Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Schulman v. SchulmanNew York Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Shatz v. ShatzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1936

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Mook v. MookAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1961
  2. Marks v. MarksNew York Supreme Court · 1948

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API