Anthony Maio v. City of New Haven (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE OBJECTION TO BILL OF COSTS (# 164)

The jury in the present case rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.   Pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 52–527(b), the plaintiff filed a bill of costs and the defendant has objected to certain items claimed by the plaintiff, specifically items 7 and 8 of the plaintiff's claimed taxable costs.   Item 7 is electronic equipment for use at trial in the amount of $500 and item 8 are fees paid to the court reporter for ordering transcripts.   The plaintiff does not dispute the defendant's objection to item 8 as that is not an enumerated item specifically listed under subsection b. With respect to item 7, the plaintiff claims that the video equipment used during the trial falls under subsection 5, namely, “for maps, plans, mechanical drawings and photographs, necessary or convenient in the trial of any action, a reasonable sum.”   The plaintiff argues that the video equipment used to display certain exhibits, and what is known as an “ELMO” projector, is an allowable taxable cost under this subsection.

Connecticut General Statutes § 52–527 governs the allowable costs that are taxable to the court and provides in relevant part:  “(b) Parties shall also receive:  (1) For each witness attending court, the witness' legal fee and mileage;  (2) for each deposition taken out of the state, forty dollars, and for each deposition within the state, thirty dollars;  (3) on an application for the sale of property attached, the expenses incurred;  (4) in any civil action affecting the title to real property situated in this state, or affecting any mortgage or lien thereon, the actual expense, not exceeding the sum of two hundred twenty-five dollars, of an examination of the land records concerning the title to the real property in question and such amount as the court or judge determines to be reasonable for the services of an expert on the value of the land when such value is in dispute;  (5) for maps, plans, mechanical drawings and photographs, necessary or convenient in the trial of any action, a reasonable sum;  (6) for copies of records used in evidence, bonds, recognizances and subpoenas, court and clerk's fees;  (7) for the signing and service of process, the legal fees payable therefore, except that a fee shall not be allowed for the return of a subpoena to court;  (8) the actual expense incurred in publishing orders of notice under direction of the court;  (9) for each interpreter necessarily employed in the trial of any civil action, twenty dollars per diem;  (10) for premiums upon all bonds or undertakings provided pursuant to statute, rule of court, order of court or stipulation of parties, including bonds in lieu of or in release or dissolution of attachment, the actual amount paid, not exceeding a reasonable amount;  (11) documented investigative costs and expenses, not exceeding the sum of two hundred dollars;  and (12) for the recording, videotaping, transcribing and presentation of the deposition of a practitioner of the healing arts, as defined in section 20–1, dentist, registered nurse, advanced practice registered nurse or licensed practical nurse, as defined in section 20–87a, or real estate appraiser that is used in lieu of live testimony in the civil action, the reasonable expenses incurred.  “Costs are the creature of statute ․ and unless the statute clearly provides for them courts cannot tax them.”  Davis v. Westport, 61 Conn.App. 834, 853–54 (2001).   The court concludes that subsection 5 of § 52–527(b) does not include video equipment as used by the plaintiff in the present case.   In addition, had the legislature intended to include the cost of the use of such equipment among the taxable costs enumerated, it could have done so as it has in subsection 12.   Accordingly, the defendant's objection to the plaintiff's claim for costs for fees paid to the court reporter for transcripts and the use of video equipment to display exhibits is SUSTAINED.

Wilson, J.

Wilson, Robin L., J.