Lew Morris Demolition Co. v. Board of Education

Civil Court of the City of New York

Lew Morris Demolition Co. v. Board of Education

80 Misc. 2d 944, 365 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1974 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1932

CourtCivil Court of the City of New York

DecidedNovember 25, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 80 Misc. 2d 944 (Lew Morris Demolition Co. v. Board of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Civil Court of the City of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lew Morris Demolition Co. v. Board of Education, 80 Misc. 2d 944, 365 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1974 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1932 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Fritz W. Alexander, II, J.

Movant having been denied summary judgment in the Civil Court appealed the decision in the Appellate Term and prevailed. Movant now seeks to tax as costs the disbursement for the printing of the record.

CPLR 8301 (subd [a], par 6) authorizes the taxation of the cost for printing, but only when it is "required”. The word "required” means the printing was necessitated in order to comply with a statute, rule of court or order issued by a court or referee. (See Society of New York Hosp. v Mogensen, 75 Misc 2d 62; 8 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par 8301.17.) There is no existing rule of the Civil Court or Appellate Term requiring the printing of this particular record. Indeed, in an attempt to minimize the cost of litigation the New York City Civil Court Act provides that only when the court so states, is printing required. (See CCA, § 1705 and Society of New York Hosp. v Mogensen, supra.)

If the movant, who is under no mandate to do so, but for what appears to be purely aesthetic reasons, has the record printed, it would be highly improper for this court to impose the cost of such printing upon the plaintiff.

Accordingly, the motion is denied.

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

Fritz W. Alexander, II, J.

Movant having been denied summary judgment in the Civil Court appealed the decision in the Appellate Term and prevailed. Movant now seeks to tax as costs the disbursement for the printing of the record.

CPLR 8301 (subd [a], par 6) authorizes the taxation of the cost for printing, but only when it is "required”. The word "required” means the printing was necessitated in order to comply with a statute, rule of court or order issued by a court or referee. (See Society of New York Hosp. v Mogensen, 75 Misc 2d 62; 8 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par 8301.17.) There is no existing rule of the Civil Court or Appellate Term requiring the printing of this particular record. Indeed, in an attempt to minimize the cost of litigation the New York City Civil Court Act provides that only when the court so states, is printing required. (See CCA, § 1705 and Society of New York Hosp. v Mogensen, supra.)

If the movant, who is under no mandate to do so, but for what appears to be purely aesthetic reasons, has the record printed, it would be highly improper for this court to impose the cost of such printing upon the plaintiff.

Accordingly, the motion is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 Misc. 2d 944, 365 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1974 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lew-morris-demolition-co-v-board-of-education-nycivct-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack