Cooper v. Cooper
Opinion of the Court
Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff, in 1991, sought an increase
The court properly granted defendant a protective order with respect to plaintiff’s discovery notice. The discovery notice is unduly burdensome inasmuch as it seeks disclosure of documents generated over a period of nearly two decades. Moreover, most of the documents sought by plaintiff are irrelevant to her modification application, which is based on claims of changed circumstances and financial hardship. Defendant has produced a financial affidavit revealing his current assets and income. Further, at oral argument upon the appeal, defense counsel indicated his willingness to comply with a reasonable request for disclosure.
Additionally, we affirm the court’s denial of plaintiff’s oral motion for recusal. There is no basis on this record for crediting plaintiff’s contention that the court is predisposed to deny plaintiff’s application. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J.—Discovery.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Lawton, Boomer and Davis, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.