![(Photo: Shutterstock.com)](http://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/389/2022/11/shutterstock_1666163560-767x633.jpg)
Limits on Interrogatories in Matrimonial Actions
Interrogatories have been a cost-effective disclosure device used in matrimonial actions, before or instead of depositions, especially where the parties have limited financial resources.
November 14, 2022 at 09:45 AM
14 minute read
In an action for a divorce, the court must determine the rights of the parties in their separate property and marital property and equitably distribute their marital property. It must consider 16 enumerated factors in making an equitable distribution of marital property. (DRL §236(B)(5)(d)(1-16). When post-divorce maintenance is requested the court must consider 20 factors in determining its amount and duration, and if the guideline amount is unjust or inappropriate (DRL §236(B)(6)(e)(a-o) and (f)). In making an award for child support and determining whether the basic child support obligation is unjust or inappropriate the court is required to consider the 10 child support factors. (DRL §240(1-b)(f)). Broad disclosure is required by the non-monied spouse by way of a searching exploration of the parties' assets, income, and financial dealings to gather all relevant information for purposes of establishing a prima facie case with regard to each of the factors.
Interrogatories have been a cost-effective disclosure device used in matrimonial actions, before or instead of depositions, especially where the parties have limited financial resources. Interrogatories are frequently used as the first disclosure device in those actions because they are far less costly to use than taking a deposition and can be used to obtain relevant documents without first serving a notice for discovery and inspection. (CPLR 3120). The questions propounded in interrogatories may be used to ascertain the existence of relevant documents and require that they be returned with the answers to the interrogatories or made available for examination and copying. (CPLR 3131). On the other hand, a deposition in a matrimonial action is time-consuming and increases the client's legal fees substantially. It is not unusual for the deposition of a party to be conducted for more than a day or two. Frequently, the party being deposed does not produce all of the documents requested in the notice to take deposition (see CPLR 3111) and offers to provide copies of the requested documents after the deposition concludes. Since these promises often go unfulfilled it is customary to adjourn the deposition until the documents are produced and the proponent of the deposition has the opportunity to question the witness about them at another session of the deposition.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All![Family Law Practitioners Weigh In on Court System's New Joint Divorce Program Family Law Practitioners Weigh In on Court System's New Joint Divorce Program](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/2b/84/84aefb93401986b5e9ff17d6c82b/dilpreet-rai-767x633.jpg)
Family Law Practitioners Weigh In on Court System's New Joint Divorce Program
!['Intrusive' Parental Supervision Orders Are Illegal, NY Appeals Court Says 'Intrusive' Parental Supervision Orders Are Illegal, NY Appeals Court Says](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/80/04/189542664437b9fb5af234217588/ny-family-courthouse-2-767x633.jpg)
'Intrusive' Parental Supervision Orders Are Illegal, NY Appeals Court Says
4 minute read!['Landmark' New York Commission Set to Study Overburdened, Under-Resourced Family Courts 'Landmark' New York Commission Set to Study Overburdened, Under-Resourced Family Courts](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/a3/1e/43b6dc864e4a94df7cf3da22cc1e/richard-anne-marie-dawne-767x633.jpg)
'Landmark' New York Commission Set to Study Overburdened, Under-Resourced Family Courts
![Law Journal Column on Marital Residence Sales in Pending Divorces Puts 'Misplaced' Reliance on Two Cases Law Journal Column on Marital Residence Sales in Pending Divorces Puts 'Misplaced' Reliance on Two Cases](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/53/eb/cfc83eb0427cbf949fd645ca1306/joel-brandes-hp105-767x633.jpg)
Law Journal Column on Marital Residence Sales in Pending Divorces Puts 'Misplaced' Reliance on Two Cases
8 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250