Case Name: Sarah Taylor Stanley, Respondent, v. James William Stanley, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-12-07
Citations: 116 A.D. 544
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sarah Taylor Stanley, Respondent, v. James William Stanley, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 116
Pages: 544–545

Head Matter:
Sarah Taylor Stanley, Respondent, v. James William Stanley, Appellant.
Third Department,
December 7, 1906.
Husband and wife — contempt for failure to pay alimony.
The -enforcement of the payment of alimony by proceedings for contempt is governed by section 1773 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not by the general -provisions of section 1241. i
After the personal service of a certified copy of the decree, á personal demand, ' -and a failure of the defendant to comply therewith, he is in contempt.
Appeal by the -defendant, James William Stanley, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Ulster Special Term and entered in the'office of the clerk of the -county of Ulster on the 7 th day of' June,. 1906, granting the plaintiff’s motion to punish the defendant for contempt in failing to pay alimony. ■
Isaac N. Jacobson, for the appellant.
John J. Linson and Albert J. Graeffe, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
By section 1773 of the Code of Civil Procedure this proceeding for contempt is specifically authorized in enforcement of a judgment directing the payment.of alimony. ' The case is, therefore., taken out .of the, rule -as to actions'generally prescribed by section 1241 of the Code, .This section, 1773,,was first inserted in our law in 1880, when the second part of the Code of Civil Procedure took effect. (See Laws of 1880, chap, .178.) When the case of Park v. Park (80 N. Y. 156) arose, therefore, there was no such specific provision . of law applicable to these actions. The case of Mercer v. Mercer (73 Hun, 192), relied upon by defendant, arose upon an order directing payment of counsel fee and not of alimony.
A certified copy of the decree was properly served upon the defendant and a personal demand for the alimony. The delay in making the demand is shown to have been caused by the absence of defendant from the State. That the rights of plaintiff have been impaired and defeated by defendant's failure to pay the same is undoubted, and we discover no reason for interfering with the order of the Special Term.
All concurred.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.