Case Name: STAFFORD v. STAFFORD et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1915-11-24
Citations: 156 N.Y.S. 25
Docket Number: 
Parties: STAFFORD v. STAFFORD et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 156
Pages: 25–27

Head Matter:
(170 App. Div. 172)
STAFFORD v. STAFFORD et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
November 24, 1915.)
Divorce <§^>162-—Proceedings—Stay on Application or Corespondent— YerieioatioN.
Where, in a wife’s action for divorce, the corespondent’s application for stay of entry of interlocutory judgment in favor of the wife, until after the issues raised by the corespondent’s proposed answer should be disposed of, was based solely upon her attorney’s affidavit, and was not supported by her own affidavit denying the truth of the charges of* the complaint, the stay was properly denied.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Divorce, Cent. Dig. § 527; Dec. Dig. <@^162.]
Kruse, P. J., and Lambert, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, Erie County.
Suit for divorce by Augusta C. Stafford against Frank B. Stafford, in which Kate Heins was named as corespondent. From an order denying the corespondent’s application for a stay of entry of interlocutory judgment for a divorce in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant until after the issues raised by the answer to be interposed by the corespondent should be disposed of, and for an order striking the case from the calendar, the corespondent appeals.
Order affirmed.
See, also, 165 App. Div. 27, 150 N. Y. Supp. 212; 167 App. Div. 956, 152 N. Y. Supp. 1144; 154 N. Y. Supp. 1146.
Argued before KRUSF, P. J., and ROBSON, FOOTE, LAMBERT, and MFRRFLL, JJ.
E. C. Schleuker, of Buffalo (Jay C. King, of Buffalo, of counsel), for appellant.
Fafay C. Wilkie, of Buffalo (Clifford J. Chipman, of Buffalo, of counsel), for respondent Augusta C. Stafford.
Falk, Phillips & Schlenker, of Buffalo, for respondent Frank B. Stafford.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The action is for a divorce on the ground of' adultery alleged to have been committed by the defendant with the corespondent, Kate Heins. The defendant interposed an answer denying the charges of adultery. The issues as to defendant's adultery were, pursuant to order of the court, tried by a jury, and were determined in favor of the plaintiff. Shortly after the jury's verdict was had, and before the plaintiff's application for interlocutory judgment was to be heard at Special Term, a notice of appearance in said action by the attorney for the corespondent and a demand of service of a copy of the complaint was served on plaintiff's attorney. No copy of the summons and complaint in said action had been theretofore served upon the corespondent.
Corespondent's application, which was denied by the order appealed from, was based solely upon the "affidavit of her attorney. It is therein alleged that he was authorized by her to' appear for her and take such action as he deemed advisable, and that he thereupon served upon plaintiff's attorney a notice of appearance for her, and a demand that a copy of the summons and complaint be served upon him as such attorney. He further alleges that, after a copy of the summons and complaint shall have been served, "on behalf of said Kate Heins, at her request, he intends to serve an answer denying the allegations of the complaint in so far as they relate to tire corespondent, Kate Heins." Beyond the purpose of plaintiff's attorney, thus alleged, to interpose an answer at the request and in behalf of the corespondent, nothing appears in the affidavit upon which the motion is based tending in any way to controvert the allegations in the complaint as to the adultery of the defendant with the corespondent. The corespondent's application for a stay should at least have been supported by her affidavit, denying the truth of the charges of adultery made in the complaint. Having failed to do this, the stay was properly denied.
We do not pass upon the question whether, if such affidavit had been presented, a stay might properly be granted, as in our view of the case that question is not now before us.
Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements but without prejudice to a new motion at Special Term upon proper papers for the relief sought by the present motion.