In re Buchholtz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Buchholtz

255 A.D. 1028, 8 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6309

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 2, 1938·Published

Opinion

Order affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: In determining the value of the services on the basis of [1029]*1029quantum meruit (Matter of Montgomery, 272 N. Y. 323) the acting surrogate properly took into consideration the contract of retainer including its recitals, the apposite sections of the Decedent Estate Law, the amount of time expended, and all surrounding circumstances, and we cannot say from this record that the allowance was inadequate. All concur. (The order determines the compensation of an attorney for services performed.) Present — Sears, P. J., Lewis, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

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

Order affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: In determining the value of the services on the basis of [1029]*1029quantum meruit (Matter of Montgomery, 272 N. Y. 323) the acting surrogate properly took into consideration the contract of retainer including its recitals, the apposite sections of the Decedent Estate Law, the amount of time expended, and all surrounding circumstances, and we cannot say from this record that the allowance was inadequate. All concur. (The order determines the compensation of an attorney for services performed.) Present — Sears, P. J., Lewis, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

In re Buchholtz, 255 A.D. 1028, 8 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6309 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

255 A.D. 1028 (In re Buchholtz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related