In re Estate of Mormin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Estate of Mormin

66 A.D.3d 686, 886 N.Y.S.2d 479

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

DecidedOctober 6, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 66 A.D.3d 686 (In re Estate of Mormin) 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 Estate of Mormin, 66 A.D.3d 686, 886 N.Y.S.2d 479 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In a probate proceeding, in which a judicial settlement was sought, Weitz & Luxenberg, EC., the current attorney for the parents of the deceased Kevin Jean Henri Faul Mormin appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Czygier, S.), entered January 28, 2008, which directed it to pay [687]*687Stephen Civardi, EC., the former attorney for the parents of the deceased Kevin Jean Henri Paul Mormin 20% of the gross attorney’s fees earned from the settlement of the underlying action, among other things, to recover damages for the wrongful death of Kevin Jean Henri Paul Mormin.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed, with costs payable by Weitz & Luxenberg, EC.

Where an attorney is discharged without cause, the attorney may recover in quantum meruit the reasonable value of the services rendered (see Campagnola v Mulholland, Minion & Roe, 76 NY2d 38, 44 [1990]; Seth Rubenstein, P.C. v Ganea, 41 AD3d 54, 60 [2007]; Bruk v Albin, 270 AD2d 441, 442 [2000]). “The determination of what constitutes a reasonable attorney’s fee is left to the sound discretion of the surrogate, ‘who is in a far superior position to judge those factors integral to the fixing of counsel fees, such as the time, effort, and skill required’ ” (Matter of Tendler, 12 AD3d 520, 521 [2004], quoting Matter of Pekofsky v Estate of Cohen, 259 AD2d 702, 702 [1999]; see Clifford v Pierce, 214 AD2d 697, 698 [1995]).

Here, contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Surrogate’s Court providently exercised its discretion in fixing the fee of Stephen Civardi, P.C., at the sum of $58,777.82, which was 20% of the total attorney’s fee (see Clifford v Pierce, 214 AD2d at 698).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court. Fisher, J.P., Balkin, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

In a probate proceeding, in which a judicial settlement was sought, Weitz & Luxenberg, EC., the current attorney for the parents of the deceased Kevin Jean Henri Faul Mormin appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Czygier, S.), entered January 28, 2008, which directed it to pay [687]*687Stephen Civardi, EC., the former attorney for the parents of the deceased Kevin Jean Henri Paul Mormin 20% of the gross attorney’s fees earned from the settlement of the underlying action, among other things, to recover damages for the wrongful death of Kevin Jean Henri Paul Mormin.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed, with costs payable by Weitz & Luxenberg, EC.

Where an attorney is discharged without cause, the attorney may recover in quantum meruit the reasonable value of the services rendered (see Campagnola v Mulholland, Minion & Roe, 76 NY2d 38, 44 [1990]; Seth Rubenstein, P.C. v Ganea, 41 AD3d 54, 60 [2007]; Bruk v Albin, 270 AD2d 441, 442 [2000]). “The determination of what constitutes a reasonable attorney’s fee is left to the sound discretion of the surrogate, ‘who is in a far superior position to judge those factors integral to the fixing of counsel fees, such as the time, effort, and skill required’ ” (Matter of Tendler, 12 AD3d 520, 521 [2004], quoting Matter of Pekofsky v Estate of Cohen, 259 AD2d 702, 702 [1999]; see Clifford v Pierce, 214 AD2d 697, 698 [1995]).

Here, contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Surrogate’s Court providently exercised its discretion in fixing the fee of Stephen Civardi, P.C., at the sum of $58,777.82, which was 20% of the total attorney’s fee (see Clifford v Pierce, 214 AD2d at 698).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court. Fisher, J.P., Balkin, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.D.3d 686, 886 N.Y.S.2d 479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-estate-of-mormin-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack