Testa v. General Motors Corp.

City of New York Municipal Court

Testa v. General Motors Corp.

146 Misc. 682, 262 N.Y.S. 599, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1779

DecidedJuly 14, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 146 Misc. 682 (Testa v. General Motors Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Testa v. General Motors Corp., 146 Misc. 682, 262 N.Y.S. 599, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1779 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Ryan, J.

Motion for retaxation of costs is granted and upon such retaxation all items are disallowed except the costs awarded by the order of dismissal. The clerk is directed to retax the costs accordingly.

Defendant Mamaroneck Sales & Service, Inc., appearing specially, moved under rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice to dismiss the [683]*683complaint upon the ground that the court had not jurisdiction of the person of the defendant which motion was granted, with ten dollars costs. Defendant thereupon taxed costs against plaintiff pursuant to the provisions of section 1475 of the Civil Practice Act. This I think was error. Defendant not having appeared generally and not having submitted to the jurisdiction of the court, is not entitled to the benefits given to defendants under said section, for same was only intended for defendants who appear generally in an action. The appearance here was not in defense of the action but for the purpose of ascertaining that, as no proper service was made on defendant, the jurisdiction against defendant was never obtained. In such case the costs are limited to the motion costs awarded, (See Bernhard v. Rice, 61 Hun, 184.)

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

Ryan, J.

Motion for retaxation of costs is granted and upon such retaxation all items are disallowed except the costs awarded by the order of dismissal. The clerk is directed to retax the costs accordingly.

Defendant Mamaroneck Sales & Service, Inc., appearing specially, moved under rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice to dismiss the [683]*683complaint upon the ground that the court had not jurisdiction of the person of the defendant which motion was granted, with ten dollars costs. Defendant thereupon taxed costs against plaintiff pursuant to the provisions of section 1475 of the Civil Practice Act. This I think was error. Defendant not having appeared generally and not having submitted to the jurisdiction of the court, is not entitled to the benefits given to defendants under said section, for same was only intended for defendants who appear generally in an action. The appearance here was not in defense of the action but for the purpose of ascertaining that, as no proper service was made on defendant, the jurisdiction against defendant was never obtained. In such case the costs are limited to the motion costs awarded, (See Bernhard v. Rice, 61 Hun, 184.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 Misc. 682, 262 N.Y.S. 599, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/testa-v-general-motors-corp-nynyccityct-1932.