The court's award of temporary maintenance and child support was not excessive. Thorough review of the record indicates that the court was presented with discrepancies in the facts presented in the parties' conflicting affidavits, as well as inconsistencies apparent on the fact of the payor spouse's own submissions, and therefore the most effective means of resolving the parties' dispute over the amounts awarded is to conduct a prompt trial. (Corsini v. Corsini, 178 A.D.2d 356.) Moreover, considering the conflicting evidence, the court did not abuse its discretion in providing that the maintenance payments be neither deductible to plaintiff nor taxable to defendant (Lasry v. Lasry, 180 A.D.2d 488).
Plaintiff's subsequent cross-motion for downward modification of the award was properly denied since he failed to provide the court with any reasonable excuse as to why he did not inform the court of the effect of increases in FICA and Federal tax deductions already scheduled to go into effect at the time of the original application (Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 568). In any event, the court did not err in refusing to modify the award since documentary evidence submitted by defendant indicated that plaintiff had misrepresented his financial status.
Plaintiff's claim that defendant is not entitled to discovery of his passports and visas is without merit. "In a matrimonial action, under equitable distribution and Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (4), broad financial disclosure is necessary and required." (Gellman v. Gellman, 160 A.D.2d 265, 267.) Here, evidence indicated that plaintiff was not forthcoming with respect to his financial status and may therefore be secreting his assets. Moreover, plaintiff, who is an international commodities trader, admitted to having consummated business deals all over the world. Inasmuch as discovery of plaintiff's passports and visas may assist defendant in uncovering plaintiff's assets, the court's order directing plaintiff to comply with discovery was proper.
While CPLR 3101 (a) directs that "[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action", the CPLR also provides that privileged matter and an attorney's work product are absolutely immune from discovery (CPLR 3101 [b], [c]; see, Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v. Chemical Bank, 78 N.Y.2d 371). CPLR 4503 (a) also provides that "a confidential communication made between the attorney * * * and the client in the course of professional employment" is privileged. Further, "[w]hile a retainer and fee arrangement agreement may be subject to discovery * * * the actual bills detailing the work done by the attorneys are clearly privileged material." (Licensing Corp. v. National Hockey League Players Assn., 153 Misc.2d 126, 127-128.) Thus, bills showing services, conversations, and conferences between counsel and others are protected from disclosure. "To allow access to such material would disclose discovery and trial strategy, and reveal the factual investigation and legal work that has been done by [the party's] attorneys." (Supra, at 128.) Inasmuch as defendant requested plaintiff's legal bills, and since such material may be privileged, the matter must be remanded to the IAS Court before which plaintiff is directed to submit the challenged material for in camera inspection for a determination as to whether the documents are protected from disclosure.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.