Lefkowitz v. Stryker Arms Corp.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Lefkowitz v. Stryker Arms Corp.

160 Misc. 213, 289 N.Y.S. 892, 1936 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1697

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJuly 13, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 160 Misc. 213 (Lefkowitz v. Stryker Arms Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lefkowitz v. Stryker Arms Corp., 160 Misc. 213, 289 N.Y.S. 892, 1936 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On the trial of this action against two defendants represented by the same attorney appellant-defendant obtained a dismissal of the complaint, and judgment was directed for plaintiff against the co-defendant. Appellant appeals from an order vacating judgment for costs awarded him as a prevailing party under subdivision 7 of section 164 of the Municipal Court Code.

While it appears from the opinion written by the justice below (158 Misc. 1) that he correctly held (Dunne v. N. Y. Telephone Co., 107 Misc. 439) that section 164 of the Municipal Court Code covers the amount to be awarded as costs in every case and is complete in itself, the justice vacated the judgment for the reason that the only provision for costs in the situation presented is sub[214]*214division 10 of that section, which enacts that “ where no provision for costs is otherwise made, the court, in its discretion, may award a sum not exceeding ten dollars.”

We do not agree with that construction of the statute. In our opinion appellant was a prevailing party within the meaning of section 164 , and is entitled to costs as of course under subdivision 7. This view seems in accord with the decision of the Appellate Term of the Second Department in Greenberg v. Sanford Garage Co., Inc. (N. Y. L. J, May 16, 1936, p. 2526).

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs, and judgment reinstated.

All concur. Present — Levy, Callahan and Frankentha-LER, J J.

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

Per Curiam.

On the trial of this action against two defendants represented by the same attorney appellant-defendant obtained a dismissal of the complaint, and judgment was directed for plaintiff against the co-defendant. Appellant appeals from an order vacating judgment for costs awarded him as a prevailing party under subdivision 7 of section 164 of the Municipal Court Code.

While it appears from the opinion written by the justice below (158 Misc. 1) that he correctly held (Dunne v. N. Y. Telephone Co., 107 Misc. 439) that section 164 of the Municipal Court Code covers the amount to be awarded as costs in every case and is complete in itself, the justice vacated the judgment for the reason that the only provision for costs in the situation presented is sub[214]*214division 10 of that section, which enacts that “ where no provision for costs is otherwise made, the court, in its discretion, may award a sum not exceeding ten dollars.”

We do not agree with that construction of the statute. In our opinion appellant was a prevailing party within the meaning of section 164 , and is entitled to costs as of course under subdivision 7. This view seems in accord with the decision of the Appellate Term of the Second Department in Greenberg v. Sanford Garage Co., Inc. (N. Y. L. J, May 16, 1936, p. 2526).

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs, and judgment reinstated.

All concur. Present — Levy, Callahan and Frankentha-LER, J J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 Misc. 213, 289 N.Y.S. 892, 1936 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lefkowitz-v-stryker-arms-corp-nyappterm-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack