A municipal defendant sought costs after being named in a slip‑and‑fall action despite evidence that it neither owned nor maintained the property.
Ownership and maintenance responsibilities were admitted by the other defendants, yet the plaintiff refused to discontinue the claim against the municipality until after a summary judgment motion was served.
The court held that commencing the action and participating in discoveries was not unreasonable, but maintaining the claim thereafter unnecessarily increased litigation costs.
Costs were awarded against the plaintiff, though reduced from the amount claimed.