Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendant husband's application to direct a nonparty witness to submit to an examination before trial was properly denied. The basis for the defendant's application was that the plaintiff wife had committed adultery with the nonparty witness. However, pretrial discovery concerning the merits of a matrimonial action should not be permitted (see, Ginsberg v Ginsberg, 104 A.D.2d 482). Although marital fault, in an appropriate case, may be a factor in fixing an award of maintenance (see, Blickstein v. Blickstein, 99 A.D.2d 287, 293; see also, Stevens v. Stevens, 107 A.D.2d 987), the single act of adultery alleged herein was not so egregious as to warrant its consideration and, thus, to justify departure from the rule proscribing pretrial discovery with respect thereto.
Finally, because broad pretrial financial disclosure is critical in matrimonial actions (see, Kaye v. Kaye, 102 A.D.2d 682, 686; Colella v. Colella, 99 A.D.2d 794; Ahern v. Ahern, 94 A.D.2d 53, 56), the pendente lite award for an appraisal of certain real property in which both parties claimed an interest was proper (see, Ahern v. Ahern, supra, at 58). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Niehoff and Harwood, JJ., concur.