Pape v. Tomoor

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Pape v. Tomoor

123 N.Y.S. 924

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 24, 1910

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 123 N.Y.S. 924 (Pape v. Tomoor) 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

Pape v. Tomoor, 123 N.Y.S. 924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff filed and served a verified complaint, •and the defendant served a verified answer. The issue thus joined was adjourned for trial. Upon the day set for trial the defendant defaulted, and the plaintiff gave testimony in support of his cause of action, and was awarded a judgment for the sum of $439.33 damages, $2 costs, and $15 “allowance,” which was taxed by the clerk. The plaintiff thereafter moved for a review of taxation, claiming that he was entitled to the sum of $30 costs, instead of $15. This motion was denied, and the plaintiff appeals from the judgment as rendered, and asks that the same be modified by granting him an allowance of $30 costs.

Section 332, subd. 2, of the Municipal Court act (Laws 1902, c. 580) provides:

“Where after- the trial of an issue of fact raised by appearance and answer of defendant, plaintiff recovers judgment for * * * four hundred dollars •or over, thirty dollars” as costs.

Subdivision 3 of the same section declares that:

“Wlhere upon nonappearance or failure of the defendant to answer plaintiff recovers judgment for * * * four hundred dollars or over, fifteen dollars” as costs.

The plaintiff herein under the foregoing provisions was clearly entitled to $30 costs. There was a trial “of an issue of fact raised by appearance and answer of the defendant.” People ex rel. Kempner v. Wilson, 34 Misc. Rep. 273, 68 N. Y. Supp. 850.

Judgment modified, by increasing the allowance of costs to the sum of $30, and, as modified, affirmed, with $15 costs to appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff filed and served a verified complaint, •and the defendant served a verified answer. The issue thus joined was adjourned for trial. Upon the day set for trial the defendant defaulted, and the plaintiff gave testimony in support of his cause of action, and was awarded a judgment for the sum of $439.33 damages, $2 costs, and $15 “allowance,” which was taxed by the clerk. The plaintiff thereafter moved for a review of taxation, claiming that he was entitled to the sum of $30 costs, instead of $15. This motion was denied, and the plaintiff appeals from the judgment as rendered, and asks that the same be modified by granting him an allowance of $30 costs.

Section 332, subd. 2, of the Municipal Court act (Laws 1902, c. 580) provides:

“Where after- the trial of an issue of fact raised by appearance and answer of defendant, plaintiff recovers judgment for * * * four hundred dollars •or over, thirty dollars” as costs.

Subdivision 3 of the same section declares that:

“Wlhere upon nonappearance or failure of the defendant to answer plaintiff recovers judgment for * * * four hundred dollars or over, fifteen dollars” as costs.

The plaintiff herein under the foregoing provisions was clearly entitled to $30 costs. There was a trial “of an issue of fact raised by appearance and answer of the defendant.” People ex rel. Kempner v. Wilson, 34 Misc. Rep. 273, 68 N. Y. Supp. 850.

Judgment modified, by increasing the allowance of costs to the sum of $30, and, as modified, affirmed, with $15 costs to appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 N.Y.S. 924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pape-v-tomoor-nyappterm-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack