
    Jean W. Brown, Respondent, v. James D. Brown, Appellant, Impleaded with Another.
    
      Practice — examination before trial — action to set aside separation agreement — when husband may be examined as to his property and income between dates of agreement and commencement of action.
    
    
      Brown v. Brown, 209 App. Div. 835, affirmed.
    (Argued September 30, 1924;
    decided October 14, 1924.)
    Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered May 23, 1924, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion for an examination before trial as to the property and income of appellant during the years 1911 to 1923 inclusive. The action was brought to cancel, and declare void a certain alleged separation agreement between respondent and appellant, dated December 5, 1910, on the grounds that it was procured through fraud and duress and that the provision made therein for respondent’s support is unfair, unjust, inequitable, unconscionable and grossly inadequate.
    The following question was certified: “ Under the allegations of the complaint and answer in this case, is the evidence of defendant Brown’s income and the character and extent of his property, both real and personal, during the years 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923 relevant, material and proper? ”
    
      Frank E. Johnson and Meier Steinbrink for appellant.
    
      George H. Porter and Claude A. Hope for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; question certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion.

Concur: Cardozo, Pound, Crane and Lehman, JJ. Dissenting: Hiscock, Ch. J., McLaughlin and Andrews, JJ.  