In re Davis, 185 A.D.2d 884 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992). · Go Syfert
In re Davis, 185 A.D.2d 884 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Progressive Advanced Ins. Co. v. Jordan
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
Co. v Tichman , 185 AD2d 884, 886 [2d Dept 1992]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Highlands Insurance v. Baez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Co. v Tichman, 185 AD2d 884, 886 [1992]; Matter of New York Cent.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wells v. West
S.D.N.Y. · 2004 · confidence medium
Id.; see also, People v. Harris, 258 A.D.2d 323 , 683 N.Y.S.2d 845 (1st Dep’t 1999) (same); People v. Rivera, 225 A.D.2d 392 , 640 N.Y.S.2d 483 (1st Dep’t 1996) (same); People v. Garcia, 202 A.D.2d 189 , 608 N.Y.S.2d 425, 426 (1st Dep’t 1994)(same); People v. Bowman, 185 A.D.2d 891 , 587 N.Y.S.2d 858, 859 (2d Dep’t 1992) (same); People v. Campanella, 176 A.D.2d 813 , 575 N.Y.S.2d 137 , 138 (2d Dep’t 1991) (same).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Quintero
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
Co. v Tichman, 185 AD2d 884, 886 [1992]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of George C. Davis, Marion Barrett, Respondent Sharon Hospital, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Aug 17, 1992.
185 A.D.2d 884
Published

— In a proceeding to admit a will to probate, the objectant Sharon Hospital, Inc., appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Dutchess County (Benson, S.), dated June 17, 1990, which denied its motion for a review of the taxation of the petitioner’s bill of costs.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the facts and as a matter of discretion, by granting the objectant’s motion to the extent that the sums of $1,120 and $378.25 paid by the petitioner for the stenographic minutes of the trial are deleted from the bill of costs; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner contends that the cost of stenographer’s minutes ordered at the outset of a trial, at the request of the Surrogate, is properly taxed as disbursements against the unsuccessful party since the minutes are necessary to the case on appeal. Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, we disagree (see, Gallagher v Baird, 60 App Div 29; Long Is. Contr. & Supply Co. v City of New York, 142 App Div 1).

Further, we find that the objectant should not be reimbursed for its share of the cost of the trial transcript (see, SCPA 2302 [3] [b]; Matter of Byron, 61 Hun 278). Balletta, J. P., Miller, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.