Case Name: MARAN v. MARAN
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-03-24
Citations: 122 N.Y.S. 9
Docket Number: 
Parties: MARAN v. MARAN.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 122
Pages: 9–11

Head Matter:
(137 App. Div. 348.)
MARAN v. MARAN.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
March 24, 1910.)
1. Divorce (§ 269 )—Alimony—Enforcement of Order—Arrest—Rearrest.
Under Code Civ. Proc. § ill, prohibiting any person from being imprisoned in jail for longer than three months under a commitment upon a fine-for contempt in nonpayment of alimony or counsel fees in divorce proceedings, where the amount to be paid is less than $500, and providing that the person shall not be again imprisoned upon a like process issued in the-same action, but giving the person having the mandate issued the same remedy against the property of the person which he had before the mandate issued, notwithstanding the person’s discharge, a divorce defendant who has served three months in jail for nonpayment of alimony cannot be rearrested even for nonpayment of subsequently accruing alimony.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Divorce, Cent. Dig. § 757; Dec. Dig. §• 269. ]
2. Divorce (§ 262 )—Alimony—Enforcement of Order—Stay of Proceedings on Nonpayment.
Plaintiff is entitled to any other remedy to compel payment of alimony awarded, including the stay of proceedings by defendant on his counterclaim for a separation, if he is not thereby prevented from contesting plaintiff’s cause of action.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Divorce, Cent. Dig. § 738; Dec. Dig. § 262. ]
3. Constitutional Law (§ 305 )—Due Process of Law—Taking Away Right of Defense.
Defendant in a divorce action cannot be deprived of an opportunity to defend the action as a punishment for contempt of court in nonpayment of alimony awarded plaintiff therein.
. [Ed. Note.—For , other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. § 925; Dec. Dig. § 305. ]
Laughiin, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Action by Sophie Maran against George Maran. From an order staying proceedings until defendant complies with' an order directing payment of alimony and counsel fees, he appeals.
Affirmed as modified.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and EAUGHLIN, CLARICE,. SCOTT, and MILLER, JJ.
Harry A. Gordon, for appellant.
Abraham H. Sarasohn, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
SCOTT, J.
Appeal from order staying all proceedings on the part of defendant. The action was begun October 2, 1908, for a separation. Defendant answered denying the allegations of the complaint and counterclaiming for a separation on his part. On October 29, 1908, an order was made directing defendant to pay $40 counsel fee- and $6 per week alimony. He paid a part of the counsel fee and paid alimony until January 25, 1909, when he ceased paying. On March 12, 1909, defendant was adjudged of contempt and sentenced to imprisonment. He remained in jail until July 1, 1909, when he was discharged under section 111, Code Civ. Proc., having served three months. The action is on the calendar and has been called twice, having been put over each time on account of plaintiff's condition of health. On January 26, 1910, by permission of the court defendant served an amended answer containing a second counterclaim in which he prayed an annulment of the marriage on account of plaintiff's insanity at the time it was contracted.
Under section 111, Code, defendant, having served the statutory period in jail for nonpayment of alimony, cannot be rearrested even for alimony subsequently accruing. Winton v. Winton, 53 Hun, 4, 5 N. Y. Supp. 537, affirmed 117 N. Y. 623, 22 N. E. 379.. The plaintiff, however, is entitled to pursue any other remedy, even to stay affirmative action on his part in the case. Sibley v. Sibley, 76 App. Div. 132, 78 N. Y. Supp. 743; Harney v. Harney, 110 App. Div. 20, 96 N. Y. Supp. 905. He may not, however, even for a contempt, be deprived of an opportunity to defend himself against plaintiff's attack. Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U. S. 409, 17 Sup. Ct. 841, 42 L. Ed. 215.
The order was therefore properly granted, assuming, as we do, that its only effect is to restrain defendant from taking any step to enforce his counterclaims, leaving him free to meet and contest any attempt on the part of plaintiff to enforce the cause of action set forth in her complaint. To resolve any doubt there may be as to the construction of the order, it may be so modified as to limit its effect to proceeding on the part of defendant to enforce the counterclaims set forth, in his amended answer, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to respondent. All concur, but LAUGHLIN, J.,-who dissents.