Alexander v. City of Syracuse et al

Filing 147

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER granting in part and denying in part 143 Motion for Bill of Costs. ORDERED that 1. Defendants the City of Syracuse and Detective Rory Gilhooleys motion for taxation of costs is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; 2. Defendants the City of Syracuse and Detective Rory Gilhooleys motion is denied to the extent that they attempt to recover $91.08 in appearance fees for deposition witnesses; and 3. Defendants the City of Syracuse and Detective Rory Gilhooley are awarded $2,464.25 in costs defending this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 3/7/2022. (Copy served via regular and certified mail)(khr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------TROY ALEXANDER,
-v-

Plaintiff,

5:17-CV-1195

CITY OF SYRACUSE; COUNTY OF
ONONDAGA; and DETECTIVE RORY
GILHOOLEY,
Defendants.
-------------------------------APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

TROY ALEXANDER
Plaintiff Pro Se
1906 S. State Street
Syracuse, New York 13205
CITY OF SYRACUSE OFFICE
OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL
Attorneys for Defendants City of
Syracuse and Rory Gilhooley
233 East Washington Street
Room 300 City Hall
Syracuse, New York 13202

DANIELLE PIRES, ESQ.
PATRICK R. BLOOD, ESQ.
SARAH MAE
KNICKERBOCKER, ESQ.

ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF LAW
Attorneys for Defendant County of
Onondaga
John H. Mulroy Civic Center
421 Montgomery Street, 10th Floor
Syracuse, New York 13202

JOHN E. HEISLER, JR. ESQ.
KATHERINE B. FELICE, ESQ.

DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER
On October 28, 2017, plaintiff Troy Alexander (“Alexander” or “plaintiff”)
filed a complaint in this district alleging violations of his constitutional rights
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”) against defendants the City of Syracuse,
Rory Gilhooley (together “the City defendants”), and the County of Onondaga.
Dkt. 1. On September 28, 2021, the City defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 56,
seeking dismissal of the complaint in its entirety as to them. Dkt. 119. The
Court granted that motion on December 1, 2021 and dismissed the City
defendants from the case. Dkt. 130.
On February 4, 2022, the City defendants moved to recover the costs they
incurred defending themselves from Alexander’s lawsuit. Dkt. 143. Plaintiff
never responded to the City defendants’ motion, so the Court will decide it
based on the City defendants’ submissions and without oral argument. 1
Under Rule 54(d)(1), “[u]nless a federal statute, the[ R]ules, or a court
order provides otherwise, costs—other than attorney’s fees—should be
allowed to the prevailing party.” A prevailing party is one who caused a
“material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties” in his favor. See

Plaintiff appealed the Court’s eventual dismissal of his entire complaint. Dkt. 141.
Nevertheless, the Court retains jurisdiction to consider the ancillary matter of assessing costs. See
Tancredi v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 378 F.3d 220, 225 (2d Cir. 2004) (noting that “whenever a district
court has federal jurisdiction over a case, it retains ancillary jurisdiction after dismissal to
adjudicate collateral matters” (cleaned up)).
1

2

Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res.,
532 U.S. 598, 604 (2001). By filing a motion for summary judgment that
resulted in the dismissal of every claim Alexander asserted against them, the
City defendants were plainly the prevailing party.
As for what costs the City defendants may recover, a plaintiff may only
recover identifiable, out-of-pocket disbursements relating to filing fees,
process servers, postage, and photocopying. See Korzeniewski v. Sapa Pho
Vietnamese Rest. Inc., 2019 WL 312149, at *12 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2019). The
City defendants have applied for costs in the amount of $2,555.33, broken
down as follows: (1) $120.00 for service of process; (2) $2,344.25 for deposition
transcripts; and (3) $91.08 in appearance fees for deponents.
Obviously enough, the $120.00 fee for service of process is recoverable.
Korzeniewski, 2019 WL 312149, at *12.
Regarding the transcripts, a prevailing party may recover fees for
transcripts “necessarily obtained for use in the case.” Camarata ex rel. C.C.
v. Polaris Indus., Inc., 2018 WL 3031848, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. June 19, 2018)
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1920). As the City defendants correctly note, those
transcripts were essential in supporting their motion for summary judgment.
Thus, they may recover those costs.
However, appearance fees for a deposition are typically not taxable. See,
e.g., PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC,
3

2017 WL 473910, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2017). Thus, the City defendants
may not recover the remaining $91.08 for appearance fees. Instead, the total
amount the City defendants may recover for their defense against
Alexander’s complaint is $2,464.25.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. Defendants the City of Syracuse and Detective Rory Gilhooley’s motion
for taxation of costs is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;
2. Defendants the City of Syracuse and Detective Rory Gilhooley’s motion
is denied to the extent that they attempt to recover $91.08 in
appearance fees for deposition witnesses; and
3. Defendants the City of Syracuse and Detective Rory Gilhooley are
awarded $2,464.25 in costs defending this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2022
Utica, New York.

4