In Johnson v. Johnson (235 A.D.2d 217 [1st Dept 1997]), the Appellate Division held that the recorded evi-dence offered was not the product of unlawful eavesdropping under CPLR 4506. The decision did not elu-cidate how the Court reached its conclusion. The Court did not expressly state that the reason for its conclu-sion was simply that the proceeding was one for custody. Indeed any such conclusion would have been contrary to existing law. The Johnson Court went on to conclude that because there was no eavesdropping, the trial court otherwise had broad discretion with respect to the admission of the recorded evidence. The First Department found that the trial court properly denied the "defendant's motion for a protective order as to those tapes that were not submitted to the court, and directed that defendant turn them over to plaintiff, finding that discovery of this material was appropriate in the circumstances of the custody dispute between the parties" The court found that the tapes were appropriate discovery material in the context of a custody dispute. The court also found that in maintaining the children's best interest as the dominant consideration and consider-ing the potential of undermining the trust and confidence that should exist between parent and child, the trial court should use its discretion in determining whether and how the material should be used.