Atlas v. Hotchkiss

New York Supreme Court

Atlas v. Hotchkiss

55 Misc. 2d 675, 285 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1967 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 963

DecidedDecember 27, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 55 Misc. 2d 675 (Atlas v. Hotchkiss) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atlas v. Hotchkiss, 55 Misc. 2d 675, 285 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1967 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 963 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Charles B. Brasser, J.

In this negligence action, the jury rendered a verdict of no cause of action. Separate judgments and separate bills of costs were entered against the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs move for an order vacating the judgments and allowing one bill of costs.

Counsel has not cited and the court has found no authority precisely in point. However the courts have passed upon the question previously where separate costs were sought by separate plaintiffs, and there was a single summons and complaint, the plaintiffs are an entity, a common question of law and of fact exists, and the issues are settled in one lawsuit. One bill of costs may be awarded. (MacLarty v. Lortz, 31 Misc 2d 49; Salimoff & Co. v. Standard Oil Co., 259 N. Y. 219; Haddad v. Triple Cities Traction Corp., 276 App. Div. 886; CPLR 8105.)

It is clear that under the facts herein the award of one bill of costs only is permitted.

Plaintiffs’ motion is granted to provide for one bill of costs by permitting amendment of the judgments as entered in the above-entitled action to provide for one judgment and for a retaxation of costs so that only one bill of costs is entered in this action, which may include the necessary and legal disbursements, if any.

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

Charles B. Brasser, J.

In this negligence action, the jury rendered a verdict of no cause of action. Separate judgments and separate bills of costs were entered against the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs move for an order vacating the judgments and allowing one bill of costs.

Counsel has not cited and the court has found no authority precisely in point. However the courts have passed upon the question previously where separate costs were sought by separate plaintiffs, and there was a single summons and complaint, the plaintiffs are an entity, a common question of law and of fact exists, and the issues are settled in one lawsuit. One bill of costs may be awarded. (MacLarty v. Lortz, 31 Misc 2d 49; Salimoff & Co. v. Standard Oil Co., 259 N. Y. 219; Haddad v. Triple Cities Traction Corp., 276 App. Div. 886; CPLR 8105.)

It is clear that under the facts herein the award of one bill of costs only is permitted.

Plaintiffs’ motion is granted to provide for one bill of costs by permitting amendment of the judgments as entered in the above-entitled action to provide for one judgment and for a retaxation of costs so that only one bill of costs is entered in this action, which may include the necessary and legal disbursements, if any.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 Misc. 2d 675, 285 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1967 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 963, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlas-v-hotchkiss-nysupct-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack