§ 8202.Amount of costs on motion

This section replaces CPA §§ 1505, 1506, 1509, and 1515. The only significant change made is an increase in the maximum fee allowable. The amount of costs which might have been awarded upon a motion were specified in CPA § 1505 as ten dollars. That maximum has been in effect for over 80 years. With today’s complexity of litigation and high cost of living, the new maximum of twenty dollars represents only a nominal change.

Two motions were excepted from CPA § 1505, the basic section which regulated the amount of costs on a motion, and regulated by CPA § 1509, which provided that the amount of costs was the same as upon appeal. The first was the motion for a new trial upon a case. See CPA §§ 550–553. The second was the motion for judgment upon a special verdict. See CPA §§ 458, 495. Apparently, the original purpose of those provisions was to adequately compensate parties who secured a review upon a motion that was in effect an appeal. The motion for a new trial upon a case, however, has been eliminated in the new CPLR, and the special provision for it is therefore unnecessary. See preliminary note to § 4404.

Although a motion for judgment on a special verdict was apparently made originally at general term (the predecessor of the Appellate Division), it is today no more complex, and indeed often less so, than many other motions. While the court in Kenney v First National Bank of Pittsburgh, 8 NY Civ Proc Rep 398, 400 (Sup Ct 1885), stated that a judgment “entered by direction of the trial judge immediately upon the rendition of the verdict, . . . was not such ‘an application for judgment upon a special verdict,’ as is referred to” in the statute, most other decisions have assumed that such an application, wherever made, entitles the party to appeal costs. See, e. g., Bass v Lawrence, 98 Misc 572, 162 NY Supp 959 (NYC Ct 1917); In re Owens, 31 Abb NC 480, 30 NY Supp 348 (NYCP 1894). But cf. Prashker, New York Practice 747 (3d ed 1954) (motion for judgment on special verdict should be made at Special Term); Mitsui & Co., Ltd. v Schneir, 255 App Div 620, 8 NYS2d 289 (1st Dept 1938) (same). In Walsh v Bowery Savings Bank, 9 NY Civ Proc Rep 177, 179 (NYC Ct 1886), the court noted:

“Ten dollars costs for the argument of the motion for judgment ought to be sufficient, but [the statute allows] . . . $60 and leaves no discretion in the court as to awarding or withholding them. This is the plain language of the effect of the . . . [statute], and I cannot change it by interpolating words, which might give to it the meaning which the defendant’s counsel claims it ought to have. The legislative intent, the grand central light in which all statutes must be read, is to be sought for in the language used.” There seems no good reason to continue the special treatment formerly accorded this motion, and it has therefore been made subject to the general motion costs rule.

CPA § 1515 provided that upon an application to adjourn a trial, an award of costs might have been made as a condition of granting the adjournment and that disbursements allowable would have included those which were rendered ineffectual by the adjournment. That section did not substantially differ from the provisions of CPA § 1505 respecting a motion and its special provisions have also been deleted as unnecessary.

The provision in CPA § 1505 for a reference has been deleted, because of the similar deletion effected by § 8106. See notes to § 8106. The inclusion in CPA § 1515 and in CPA § 1505 of a provision for disbursements was misleading for it implied that disbursements were not allowable in other situations. Section 8301(b) expressly indicates that disbursements are allowed where costs are awarded upon a motion.

CPA § 1506 is an obsolete provision which prescribed a fixed sum not exceeding $20 to be added to the costs of a motion for discovery or inspection “for the fees of the referee.” Since § 8301(b) permits taxation of these fees as disbursements, CPA § 1506 has been deleted as unnecessary.

Add, L 1962, ch 308, § 1; amd, L 1972, ch 734, § 8; L 1972, ch 735, § 6; L 1988, ch 101, § 2, eff Jan 1, 1989.