Case Name: James Maguire, Appellant, v. Nellie Maguire, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1902
Citations: 75 A.D. 534
Docket Number: 
Parties: James Maguire, Appellant, v. Nellie Maguire, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 75
Pages: 534–536

Head Matter:
James Maguire, Appellant, v. Nellie Maguire, Respondent.
Motion to open a default in an action for divorce — denied, where neither an affidavit of merits nor a proposed answer was presented by the moving party.
On a motion by a woman to open a judgment of absolute divorce, taken against her by default, the moving party did not present an affidavit of merits or a ■ proposed answer, or deny the charge of misconduct set forth in the complaint, except by stating that she had “a good and valid defense to this action.” The only excuse offered by her for suffering the default to be taken was that the person who served the papers upon her told her to throw them away, as the plaintiff was “making a bluff,” and that, not understanding the nature of the papers served upon her, she dismissed the matter from her mind. It was uncontradicted that she was an intelligent person and could read and write.
Held, that her motion should be denied.
O’Bbien, J., dissented.
Appeal by the plaintiff, James Maguire, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 9th day of June, 1902, opening the defendant’s default in an action for an absolute divorce.
James A. Douglas, for the appellant.

Opinion:
McLaughlin, J.:
This action was brought to procure a divorce. The summons and complaint were personally served upon the defendant on the 28th of January, 1902. She did not appear in the action, and thereafter judgment was rendered dissolving the marriage contract oh the ground of defendant's adultery. Some time after a certified copy of the judgment had been served upon the' defendant, she applied for leave to excuse her default and serve an answer. The motion was granted and the plaintiff has appealed.
We think this order should be reversed. There is nothing in the- moving papers which excuses the defendant's default in appearing, nor does it appear therefrom that she has a valid defense to the action. She does not even present an affidavit of merits, or a proposed answer, nor does she even deny the charge of adultery set out in the •complaint, except in the statement that she has " a good and valid defense to this action." Ho excuse was offered for the default, except she says the one who served the papers upon her told her to throw them away, as the plaintiff was " making a bluff," and she :says she thereupon " dismissed the matter from my mind, as I was without money and was unable to procure a lawyer or consult with my friends or relatives." It is true she says she did not understand the nature of the papers served upon her, but the fact is uncontradicted that she is an intelligent person and can read and write. There is nowhere in the affidavit any statement of merits (State Bank of Syracuse v. Gill, 23 Hun, 406), nor is a proposed answer presented. The rule seems to be well settled that, when one is in default for failure to serve a pleading and asks to have the default excused, a copy of the proposed pleading must be annexed to the moving papers. (Allen v. Fowler & Wells Company, 45 App. Div. 506.)
We have, therefore, a case in which a party admits the personal service of the summons and complaint upon her; who does not deny the charge of adultery therein set forth, except as stated that she has " a good and valid defense to this action ; " who does not present an affidavit of merits or a proposed answer, or any facts from which the court can see that a trial could possibly be to her interest, otherwise than the gratification which it might afford her to •subject the plaintiff to annoyance, trouble and expense. Under such facts, we think her motion should have been denied.
The order appealed from, therefore, must be reversed and the motion denied, without costs.
Van Brunt, P. J., and Laughlin, J., concurred; O'Brien, J., dissented.