Case ID: ny-sup-ct_46/html/0648-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Daniels, J.;", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GLORVINA R. HOFFMAN, Appellant, v. AMANDA M. DE GRAAF, Respondent.
    
      Additional allowance — when not allowed, in an action to vacate an award.
    
    Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant recovered on a trial at Special Term, and from an order making an additional allowance of costs.
    The object of the action was to vacate and set aside an appraisement or award, because of the misconduct of the umpire selected to determine the question submitted to the appraisers. The defendant was the owner of property subject to a lease which the plaintiff had acquired. The lease was about to expire, and by covenants contained in it the plaintiff was entitled to its renewal for the period of twenty-one years on the payment of a rental of five per cent of the full and fair worth at private sale of the land leased.
    The court at General Term, after holding that the refusal of the court to set aside the award was justified by the evidence and findings, said : “ Upon the determination of the action an additional allowance of costs was made for the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars. For this there was no foundation, for all that was in controversy in the case was whether the award should stand or should be vacated. And as no valuation could be placed upon the award in money there was no criterion by which an allowance could be directed.
    The judgment should be affirmed, with costs, but the order making’the allowance should be reversed with ten dollars costs and also the disbursements.”
    
      E. L. Fancher, for the appellant.
    
      Abram Kling and James R. Marvin, for the respondent.
   Opinion by

Daniels, J.;

Davis, P. J., and Beady, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order making allowance reversed with ten dollars costs and disbursements.