From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Greenbaum v. Berenson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1926
217 App. Div. 774 (N.Y. App. Div. 1926)

Opinion

June, 1926.


Order granting defendants' motion to retax costs reversed upon the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. The allowance of the item in defendants' costs of their disbursements of seventy dollars for premium upon a surety bond filed by them is unauthorized by the Civil Practice Act, and is contrary to the decisions made under that act and the Code of Civil Procedure. Had a surety company bond been ordered by the court the situation presented would have been different. Kelly, P.J., Manning, Young, Kapper and Lazansky, JJ., concur.

See Civ. Prac. Act, § 1518, subd. 10; Code Civ. Proc. § 3256. — [REP.


Summaries of

Greenbaum v. Berenson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1926
217 App. Div. 774 (N.Y. App. Div. 1926)
Case details for

Greenbaum v. Berenson

Case Details

Full title:JACOB J. GREENBAUM, Appellant, v. ALEXANDER BERENSON and Others…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 1, 1926

Citations

217 App. Div. 774 (N.Y. App. Div. 1926)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Sawyer Bros

Newton v. Consolidated Gas Co., 265 U.S. 78, 83, 84, 44 S. Ct. 481, 68 L. Ed. 909. Upon the merits the New…

N.R.S. Realty Corp. v. Bernard S. Forman, Inc.

We are also of opinion that appellants (respondents here) were not entitled to tax the item for making and…