Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Hannah LIEBERMAN, Respondent, v. Adam LIEBERMAN, Appellant.
DECISION & ORDER
In a matrimonial action, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Eric I. Prus, J.), dated March 1, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the defendant's motion to vacate so much of an order of the same court dated February 9, 2015, as, sua sponte, directed the defendant “not to disseminate personal information regarding the plaintiff to any non-party other than in the course of professional, therapeutic, or medical treatment.”
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion is granted.
The parties were divorced in May 2011, and the defendant was subsequently awarded sole legal and physical custody of the parties' children. In December 2014, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, to hold the defendant in contempt of court. In an order dated February 9, 2015, the Supreme Court denied the motion, and, sua sponte, directed the defendant “not to disseminate personal information regarding the plaintiff to any non-party other than in the course of professional, therapeutic, or medical treatment,” as such disclosure was not in the best interests of the children (hereinafter the nondissemination provision). The defendant moved to vacate the nondissemination provision, and the court denied his motion.
We disagree with the Supreme Court's denial of the defendant's motion to vacate (see Matter of Sepulveda v. Perez, 90 A.D.3d 1057, 936 N.Y.S.2d 226; Matter of Anonymous v. Anonymous, 203 A.D.2d 283, 612 N.Y.S.2d 887). There is insufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate that the nondissemination provision in the February 9, 2015, order was necessary to insure the children's best interests (see Matter of Sepulveda v. Perez, 90 A.D.3d at 1059, 936 N.Y.S.2d 226). In any event, the nondissemination provision was not narrowly tailored to achieve that end (see Children's Vil. v. Greenburgh Eleven Teachers' Union Fedn. of Teachers, Local 1532, 258 A.D.2d 610, 612, 685 N.Y.S.2d 754).
CHAMBERS, J.P., AUSTIN, ROMAN and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2016-02842
Decided: December 19, 2018
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)