Opinion
May 3, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is well established that the "[c]ourts do not favor disclosure of income tax returns without some showing that the particular information in tax returns has some specific application to the case or that other sources of information are likely to be inaccessible or unproductive" ( Active Fire Sprinkler Corp. v. American Home Assur. Co., 203 A.D.2d 218; see also, Walter Karl, Inc. v. Wood, 161 A.D.2d 704, 705; Zimmer v. Cathedral School, 204 A.D.2d 538, 539). Here, the defendants failed to sustain their burden of showing that the disclosure of the plaintiff's tax returns was warranted ( see, Grossman v. Lacoff, 168 A.D.2d 484; BRS W Assocs. v. Grace Co., 156 A.D.2d 249; Law Offs. of Bernard v. DiLorenzo, 80 A.D.2d 701). Accordingly, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the defendants' motion.
S. Miller, J. P., O'Brien, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.