Miller v. Koven

New York Supreme Court

Miller v. Koven

127 Misc. 85, 215 N.Y.S. 263, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 911

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 3, 1926

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 127 Misc. 85 (Miller v. Koven) 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

Miller v. Koven, 127 Misc. 85, 215 N.Y.S. 263, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 911 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Proskauer, J.

The successful plaintiff in a replevin action who recovered chattels, or the sum of $100, their value, moves for retaxation of costs on the clerk’s refusal to allow him a bill of costs. He claims that section 1473 of the Civil Practice Act is the only limitation on his right to costs, namely, that if the fixed value of the chattels is less than $50 his costs cannot exceed the amount of the value and the damage. An analysis of sections 1470 to 1474 of the Civil Practice Act, however, shows that certain limitations are contained in sections 1471 to 1473, inclusive. Section [86]*861474 specifies certain limitations arising out of the fact that the plaintiff unnecessarily sued in a higher court. It has been held that the limitations of section 1474 are over and above and in addition to those of section 1472. (Parker v. City of New York, 122 Misc. 660.) This also seems to be the logical effect of a dictum in Herman v. Girvin (8 App. Div. 418, 421). The policy of the law should be to discourage the bringing of actions in the Supreme Court which could be brought in other tribunals.

Motion denied. Order signed.

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

Proskauer, J.

The successful plaintiff in a replevin action who recovered chattels, or the sum of $100, their value, moves for retaxation of costs on the clerk’s refusal to allow him a bill of costs. He claims that section 1473 of the Civil Practice Act is the only limitation on his right to costs, namely, that if the fixed value of the chattels is less than $50 his costs cannot exceed the amount of the value and the damage. An analysis of sections 1470 to 1474 of the Civil Practice Act, however, shows that certain limitations are contained in sections 1471 to 1473, inclusive. Section [86]*861474 specifies certain limitations arising out of the fact that the plaintiff unnecessarily sued in a higher court. It has been held that the limitations of section 1474 are over and above and in addition to those of section 1472. (Parker v. City of New York, 122 Misc. 660.) This also seems to be the logical effect of a dictum in Herman v. Girvin (8 App. Div. 418, 421). The policy of the law should be to discourage the bringing of actions in the Supreme Court which could be brought in other tribunals.

Motion denied. Order signed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 Misc. 85, 215 N.Y.S. 263, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-koven-nysupct-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack