In re Efsits

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Efsits

184 A.D.2d 699

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

DecidedJune 22, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 184 A.D.2d 699 (In re Efsits) 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

In re Efsits, 184 A.D.2d 699 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding, inter alia, for an accounting, the executor appeals from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County (Laurino, S.), dated June 19, 1990, as assessed a surcharge against the executor’s statutory commissions.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Surrogate’s Court found that the attorney for the executor performed certain services that should have been performed by the executor. The court valued those services at $6,500 and surcharged the executor’s statutory commissions by that amount. Based upon the facts and circumstances of this proceeding, we conclude that the determination of the Surrogate was appropriate. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding, inter alia, for an accounting, the executor appeals from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County (Laurino, S.), dated June 19, 1990, as assessed a surcharge against the executor’s statutory commissions.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Surrogate’s Court found that the attorney for the executor performed certain services that should have been performed by the executor. The court valued those services at $6,500 and surcharged the executor’s statutory commissions by that amount. Based upon the facts and circumstances of this proceeding, we conclude that the determination of the Surrogate was appropriate. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-efsits-nyappdiv-1992.