
    LEDERER v. KRAUSZ et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    November 10, 1904.)
    1. Cost—Payment—Staying Peoceedings.
    Where costs had been adjudged against plaintiff in a former action in the Supreme Court between the same parties for the same cause of action, defendants were entitled to an order staying subsequent proceedings until such costs were paid, in the absence of any proof authorizing the court to deny a motion for such stay in the exercise of its discretion,
    Appeal from City Court of New York.
    .Action by Jannie Lederer against Bernauth Krausz and another. From an order of the New York City Court denying a motion to stay all proceedings on the part of plaintiff until payment of a judgment for costs in a former action in the Supreme Court between the same parties, defendants appeal.
    Reversed.
    Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and FITZGERALD, JJ.
    J. M. Allen, for appellants.
    M. Marks, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

No affidavits or other papers were submitted in the court below by plaintiff upon this motion. In the absence of proof authorizing the court, in the exercise of a sound discretion, to deny defendants’ motion, the defendants, according to uniform practice, were entitled, upon the verified allegations contained in their moving papers, to the stay asked for. Barton v. Speis, 73 N. Y. 133; Richardson v. White, 27 How. Prac. 153.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted. 
      
      [ 1. See Costs, vol. 13, Cent. Dig. §§ 1045-1049.
     