City Not Entitled To Recoup Costs In Small Claims Action

Adams v. City of New York, ___Misc. 3d____( Richmond Co. Dec. 9, 2011), is a colorful decision. NYC, for the first time, sought to recover its costs where in prevailed in Small Claims matters-yes Small Claims. In rejecting the City's application, the court explained:

The court must applaud the creativity of the City in seeking new sources of income in these times of diminishing revenue and budgetary shortfalls. However, the attempt to slip a fast ball by the batter who's waiting for the curve, will not be successful at this time. Because the court is only aware of the filings in Richmond County, it is unable to determine if this pitch will be only fouled back (limited to Staten Island) or hit out of the park (stopped city-wide).

Regrettably, it appears to many commentators that the above words sung by Huck Finn's "Pap" in "Big River" more accurately describes the current state of affairs between the people and the government-with all levels seeking to enhance revenue streams in unique ways. Hopefully, the public official looking for new income sources is not a Broadway afficionado because if he or she has seen productions of musicals such as "Urinetown" or "Anyone Can Whistle," the citizenry could be in for some interesting times.

The clerk is directed to reject these and any future applications by the City where it is a successful defendant to enter a bill of costs against a party in a small claims action.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein