Taylor v. Taylor

New York Supreme Court

Taylor v. Taylor

63 Misc. 182, 116 N.Y.S. 530

DecidedApril 15, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 63 Misc. 182 (Taylor v. Taylor) 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

Taylor v. Taylor, 63 Misc. 182, 116 N.Y.S. 530 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Giegerich, J.

The issues were referred to a referee to

hear, try and determine. The case was tried and the referee reported in favor of the plaintiff, but no direction for the payment of costs is contained either in his report and findings or in the interlocutory judgment confirming such report and findings. The plaintiff now applies for final judgment in a form which contains a provision for the payment of costs. The referee had the discretion to allow or disallow costs. Since he did not award any, the court at Special Term has no power to do so. Sabater v. Sabater, 7 App. Div. 70. See Stevens v. Weiss, 25 Misc. Rep. 457. In motions of this character the court cannot reverse, add to or subtract from the decision made by the referee, and no provision not authorized by the referee can be inserted in the judgment applied for. Jones v. Jones, 71 Hun, 519, 524; Sabater v. Sabater, supra,; Goldner v. Goldner, 49 App. Div. 395, 399; Code Civ. Pro., § 1774.

The provision as to costs has, therefore, been stricken out and as thus corrected the final judgment has been signed.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Giegerich, J.

The issues were referred to a referee to

hear, try and determine. The case was tried and the referee reported in favor of the plaintiff, but no direction for the payment of costs is contained either in his report and findings or in the interlocutory judgment confirming such report and findings. The plaintiff now applies for final judgment in a form which contains a provision for the payment of costs. The referee had the discretion to allow or disallow costs. Since he did not award any, the court at Special Term has no power to do so. Sabater v. Sabater, 7 App. Div. 70. See Stevens v. Weiss, 25 Misc. Rep. 457. In motions of this character the court cannot reverse, add to or subtract from the decision made by the referee, and no provision not authorized by the referee can be inserted in the judgment applied for. Jones v. Jones, 71 Hun, 519, 524; Sabater v. Sabater, supra,; Goldner v. Goldner, 49 App. Div. 395, 399; Code Civ. Pro., § 1774.

The provision as to costs has, therefore, been stricken out and as thus corrected the final judgment has been signed.

Ordered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 Misc. 182, 116 N.Y.S. 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-taylor-nysupct-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack