Bederka v. Syms

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bederka v. Syms

138 A.D.3d 511, 28 N.Y.S.3d 314

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 12, 2016

Docket821N 4494/09

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.3d 511 (Bederka v. Syms) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bederka v. Syms, 138 A.D.3d 511, 28 N.Y.S.3d 314 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Nora S. Anderson, S.), entered January 26, 2015, which granted the Special Referee’s motion to determine her fee for supervising preobjection discovery and to allocate such fee among the parties, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The amount of the fee award was justified by the qualifications of the referee and the time she reasonably spent in resolving acrimonious disputes among counsel, including issues of some complexity. There is no merit to the contention that the fee award should be limited because the estate is small, as the purpose of the discovery was to establish that the estate had been diminished by transfers as a result of undue influence and is of greater value than stated by petitioner. The allocation of the fee was a proper exercise of discretion, commensurate with the Surrogate’s correct perception of the causes of the discovery delays.

Concur — Tom, J.R, Andrias, ManzanetDaniels, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Nora S. Anderson, S.), entered January 26, 2015, which granted the Special Referee’s motion to determine her fee for supervising preobjection discovery and to allocate such fee among the parties, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The amount of the fee award was justified by the qualifications of the referee and the time she reasonably spent in resolving acrimonious disputes among counsel, including issues of some complexity. There is no merit to the contention that the fee award should be limited because the estate is small, as the purpose of the discovery was to establish that the estate had been diminished by transfers as a result of undue influence and is of greater value than stated by petitioner. The allocation of the fee was a proper exercise of discretion, commensurate with the Surrogate’s correct perception of the causes of the discovery delays.

Concur — Tom, J.R, Andrias, ManzanetDaniels, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 511, 28 N.Y.S.3d 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bederka-v-syms-nyappdiv-2016.