Capes v. Capes

173 A.D. 142, 159 N.Y.S. 367, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6573
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 2, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 173 A.D. 142 (Capes v. Capes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Capes v. Capes, 173 A.D. 142, 159 N.Y.S. 367, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6573 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Opinion

Scott, J.:

The plaintiff, in support of her motion for alimony and counsel fees, presents nothing from which the court can find sufficient reason to believe that there is a fair probability that on the trial of the issues the charge of adultery against defendant will be sustained. (Merrell v. Merrell, 168 App. Div. 896.) There is nothing except the allegation in the complaint that defendant did commit the act. It is true that this is alleged as of plaintiff’s own knowledge, but, even if she has personal knowledge of the fact, which is improbable, she coixld not testify to it on the trial. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 831.) If, therefore, she has no other evidence than that which she presents on this motion she must inevitably fail in her action.

[143]*143The order should be reversed and motion denied, without prejudice to a renewal of the motion upon proper papers.

Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith and Page, JJ., concurred.

Order reversed and motion denied, without prejudice to renewal of motion upon proper papers.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Burgwinkel v. Burgwinkel
269 A.D. 943 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1945)
Stillman v. Stillman
115 Misc. 106 (New York Supreme Court, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
173 A.D. 142, 159 N.Y.S. 367, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capes-v-capes-nyappdiv-1916.