When this court on the prior appeal granted appellants leave to renew their motion to open their default on condition they pay a full bill of costs to date plus $250, such payment to be made within ten days after service of a copy of this court's order, appellants did not unreasonably assume this court intended respondents to move with alacrity and promptly have such costs taxed and served upon appellants. It seems unreasonable to expect appellants to know what respondents' costs were, particularly if such costs impliedly included disbursements. (See 23 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, Costs, § 257, p. 297; Empire Apts. v. Nussbaum, 48 N.Y.S.2d 136; also Diehl v. Dreyer, 103 App. Div. 590. ) It is not without significance that in both the National Sur. Co. case and Hadjopoulos case, cited by the majority, where leave to serve an amended pleading was granted upon terms, the bill of costs was taxed by the clerk of the court. It is also significant that after the parties failed to agree as to what was a proper bill of costs the respondents' attorneys did in fact, some 14 days after service of the Appellate Division order, submit a bill for taxation which was adjusted by the clerk to a lower amount. It was promptly paid by the appellants.