
    MONDANO v. MONDANO.
    (Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.
    April 11, 1910.)
    Divorce (§ 129)—Adultery—Allegations—Proof.
    In divorce proceedings, an allegation that defendant committed adultery with a certain male person, naming him, is not supported by testimony which failed to identify the man with whom the offense proved had been committed.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Divorce, Dec. Dig. § 129.]
    
      Action for divorce by James Mondano against Catharine Mondano.
    Complaint dismissed, unless plaintiff wishes to introduce further proof.
    Harry Greenberg, for plaintiff.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Eep’r Indexes
    
   GIEGERICH, J:

The complaint alleges that the defendant committed adultery “with a certain male person, Achille De Archangelo by name.” The testimony, however, does not disclose the identity of the man with whom the offense proved was committed. The proof is therefore insufficient. Bokel v. Bokel, 3 Edw. Ch. 376 ; see Wood v. Wood, 2 Paige, 113; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 61 N. Y. 398.

If the plaintiff wishes to introduce further proof, he may do so at Trial Term, Part 12, on April 19, 1910, at 10:30 a. m.; otherwise, the complaint will be dismissed.  