Annette B. Wetmore (now Annette B. Markoe), Respondent, v. William Boerum Wetmore, Appellant, Impleaded with Others. (No. 2.)

Annette B. Wetmore (now Annette B. Markoe), Respondent, v. William Boerum Wetmore, Appellant, Impleaded with Others. (No. 2.) Benewdl of a motion—failure to comply with the terms fixed as a condition of leave to renew it. A motion renewed pursuant to a provision of an order permitting such renewal thereof by the defendant “on paying the balance of the arrears of alimony due from him to the plaintiff under the judgment of divorce granted to the plaintiff in her action against the said defendant,William B. Wetmore,” and upon the payment of the costs of the action, should be denied in the absence of proof by the defendant that he has complied with the terms of said order. Appeal by the defendant, William Boernm Wetmore, 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 20th day of January, 1898, denying his motion for a rehearing of a motion denied by an order made at the New York Special Term bearing date the 29th day of September, 1896. Thomas P. Wickes, for the appellant. Flamen B. Candler, for the respondent. [MAJORITY — Ingraham, J.:] Ingraham, J.: We think this order was properly denied. A motion was originally argued and submitted to the court which was decided by the entry of an order on the 29th day of September, 1896, and which contained a provision that the defendant William B. Wetmore have leave to renew the motion “ on paying the balance of the arrears of alimony due from him to the plaintiff under the judgment of divorce granted to the plaintiff in her action against the said defendant William B. Wetmore,” and upon the said defendant paying the. costs of this .action which have been awarded against him. It is not claimed by the defendant that he has complied with the terms of this order or has paid the arrears of alimony due, and he was not, therefore, entitled to renew the motion under the order entered denying his original motion. For that reason the court below properly denied his motion for a rehearing, and the order denying that motion is affirmed, witli ten dollars costs and disbursements. Van Brunt, P. J., Patterson, O’Brien and McLaughlin, JJ., concurred. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.