Moses v. Moses

154 N.Y.S. 555
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 15, 1915
StatusPublished

This text of 154 N.Y.S. 555 (Moses v. Moses) 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
Moses v. Moses, 154 N.Y.S. 555 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1915).

Opinion

GIEGERICH, J.

The defendants moved to amend their answer, and the motion was granted upon payment of taxable costs to date and $10 costs of this motion. Plaintiff, in her bill presented for taxation, included, besides $130 costs of the action, disbursements amounting to $130.36, and the bill was taxed as presented at $260.36. Defendants objected to the taxation of any disbursements and to one of the items of costs, which last item seems unobjectionable (Code Civ. Proc. § 3251), and they now move for a retaxation.

I think it was error to tax the disbursements, because they were not specified in the order by virtue of which the taxation was had. The precise question is not decided in any of the cases cited, but I think it sufficiently appears from several of them that the principle is that [556]*556an award of costs upon a judgment in an action or upon a final order or decree in a special proceeding carries with it the taxable disbursements (Matter of Perry, 131 App. Div. 284, 115 N. Y. Supp. 744; Matter of Babcock, 86 App. Div. 563, 83 N. Y. Supp. 1020), but that in any other case disbursements cannot properly be taxed unless expressly awarded by the order allowing costs (Ward v. Ward, 22 N. Y. Supp. 903, 905; Burnell v. Coles, 26 Misc. Rep. 378, 380, 56 N. Y. Supp. 208; Cassidy v. McFarland, 139 N. Y. 201, 209, 34 N. E. 893). The question did not arise in Grant v. Pratt & Lambert, 110 App. Div. 149, 97 N. Y. Supp. 38, cited by the plaintiff. There the disbursements had been voluntarily paid, and the question was whether payment could be compelled a second time.

Motion granted to the extent of directing a retaxation, which shall exclude all disbursements. Settle order on notice.

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

Related

Cassidy v. . McFarland
34 N.E. 893 (New York Court of Appeals, 1893)
In re the Appraisal under the Taxable Transfer Laws of the Estate of Babcock
86 A.D. 563 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1903)
Grant v. Pratt
110 A.D. 149 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1905)
In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Perry
131 A.D. 284 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1909)
Burnell v. Coles
26 Misc. 378 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1899)
Ward v. Ward
22 N.Y.S. 903 (Superior Court of New York, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
154 N.Y.S. 555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moses-v-moses-nysupct-1915.