RUPERT v. RUPERT

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting financial disclosure in the matrimonial action before the invalidity of the antenuptial agreement was established (see, DeSantis v DeSantis, 182 A.D.2d 1107; Cruey v Cruey, 159 A.D.2d 241, 241-242; Hoffman v Hoffman, 100 A.D.2d 704). Unlike the showing made in Gilsten v Gilsten ( 137 A.D.2d 411), here plaintiff failed to show that financial disclosure was necessary to support her cause of action to declare the invalidity of the agreement. Similarly, the court erred in ordering an accounting of expenditures of defendant's assets.