Special Referee Louis Crespo
Husband Perkins moved to quash subpoenas and sought a protective order, while wife Steineger cross-moved for sanctions, among other things, in this action for divorce. Perkins claimed the subpoena served by his wife on financial, investment and corporate entities were defective and inappropriate. The court denied the motion finding Justice Kaplan “so-ordered” the subpoena, and the presumption was they were so-ordered because the judge deemed them to be an appropriate request. Also, it noted absent an unreasonable request, parties to a divorce action were entitled to full financial disclosure spanning the entire marriage, finding Perkins failed to demonstrate his burden for a protective order. Steineger moved to Preclude Perkins from using or relying on a purported 1989 agreement or 2011 agreement arguing they contained documentary defects and failed to comply with the non-waivable execution and acknowledgment requirements of Domestic Relations Law §236B(3). The court found the 1989 agreement was not notarized. It also found that neither agreement was “subscribed” or “acknowledged,” hence, neither were valid or enforceable, and could not serve as the basis for determining the issue of equitable distribution in Perkins’ favor.
