Category: Uncategorized

Does Kapon authorize unlimited access to a party’s financial records?

In Matter of Kapon v Koch, 23 NY3d 32, 38 (2014), the Court of Appeals concluded that a party seeking disclosure from a nonparty is not required to show “special circumstances”.  Rather, the Court held that the statute “allow[s] for the discovery of any person who possesses material and necessary evidence[.]” 

Does this mean that a litigant is entitled to unlimited access to a party’s financial records?  Not necessarily.

First, the information subpoenaed must be material and necessary, and “the subpoenaing party [must] state, either on the face of the subpoena or in a notice accompanying it, ‘the circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required’” (id. at 39, citing CPLR 3101).  If the subpoena requests irrelevant information, the Court will quash it.  Similarly, if the subpoena served on a nonparty fails to set forth the circumstances or reason for the disclosure, a litigant may argue that the subpoena is non-compliant and should be quashed accordingly.

In addition, there are several related objections that are subparts of the material and necessary standard.  A party for instance may object to a subpoena on grounds that it is overbroad or constitutes a fishing expedition (see e.g. Saratoga Harness Racing v Roemer, 274 AD2d 887, 889 [3d Dept 2000] [improper “demand for … all of defendant’s balance sheets, income statements, cash flow statements, general ledger statements, expense reports and bank account statements for a period of more than three years” (citation omitted)]; Matter of American Express Prop. Cas. Co. v Vinci, 63 AD3d 1055, 1056 [2d Dept 2009]). 

The trial court also has “the authority to impose, in its discretion, appropriate restrictions on demands which are unduly burdensome . . . and to prevent abuse by issuing a protective order where the discovery request may cause unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice to any person or the courts” (Rawlins v St. Joseph’s Hosp. Health Ctr., 108 AD3d 1191, 1192 [4th Dept 2013] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see CPLR 3103).

A more aggressive litigant may further attempt to argue that the standard is or should be higher in cases involving sensitive information such as tax returns and personal financial records.  The court in Reintsema v Johnson, 2018 NY Slip Op 33612(U) (Sup Ct, Saratoga County 2018), for instance, concluded that “the scope of discovery of personal financial records and specifically income tax returns, is narrow, and such records to be disclosed, must be found indispensable to a party’s claim and unavailable from other sources … [and that] [c]ourts do not allow an adversary to ‘freely roam’ through an opponent’s financial records, except in certain limited circumstances for example when income diversion is alleged and again the relevant information is not available from any other source” (citations omitted).

Can you file a counterclaim in Surrogate’s Court?

NY SCPA 302(1) expressly limits the types of pleadings allowed in Surrogate’s Court.  Unless directed by the court, the only pleadings allowed are a petition, answer, objections, and an account. 

What about a counterclaim?  Do you need permission from the court to file it?

Matter of Eshaghian, 144 AD3d 1155 (2d Dept 2016) briefly addressed this issue.  There, the court held that counterclaims had been properly asserted in the case, citing to the CPLR and SCPA in support of its conclusion.  Essentially, the court impliedly held that SCPA 302 is not specific enough to preclude a counterclaim and that the courts may therefore rely on CPLR 3011 to supplement the definition of an answer, which expressly provides that an answer may include a counterclaim.

Matter of Zalaznick, 84 Misc 2d 715 (Sur Ct, Bronx County 1975) also provides some guidance on this issue.  There, the court considered the issue of whether a cross-petition was permissible.  The court held that “[i]mplicit in a ‘petition’ being a proper pleading is the right of an adverse party to utilize a cross petition … in the same proceeding[.]”  The court was particularly concerned about a contrary holding, which would promote piecemeal litigation in different forums and cause significant delay.

While these cases provide authority for a party to interject a counterclaim in Surrogate’s Court, there is a counterargument to be made.  Among other things, SCPA 302 and CPLR 3011 both describe the types of pleadings permitted.  Insofar as SCPA 302 does not expressly permit answers to contain counterclaims, one could argue that the contrary provision of CPLR 3011 is inconsistent to the procedure set forth by the SCPA and should not be applied.   

Indeed, Matter of Eshaghian may have failed to consider the ramifications of relying on CPLR 3011.  Where counterclaims are included in an answer, that provision expressly requires a reply to a counterclaim.  Allowing respondents to interject counterclaims in a case based on CPLR 3011 would therefore mandate and expand the types of pleadings permitted in Surrogate’s Court so as to include a reply.  This in turn would arguably expand the types of pleadings permitted by SCPA 302(1) and arguably be inconsistent with the procedures set forth in the SCPA.   

Another argument against permitting counterclaims is based on the provisions of SCPA 2402, which sets forth the fees required for parties to file a pleading.  Whereas some petitions may cost up to $1,250 for the filing fee, the filing fee for an answer is only $75.  Arguably, the intent of this provision is to collect as much revenue as possible.  Allowing an answer to interject a counterclaim for only $75 would arguably be inconsistent with the procedures of the SCPA.