In re Hallewell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Hallewell

266 A.D. 723, 40 N.Y.S.2d 956, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4087

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

DecidedApril 22, 1943

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 266 A.D. 723 (In re Hallewell) 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 Hallewell, 266 A.D. 723, 40 N.Y.S.2d 956, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4087 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The fixation of the amount for services was made at a time after the rendition of the services, when the relation of attorney and client had existed for a long period of time and was still in force. In this State it has been held that as to the contracts made under such circumstances, which are beneficial to the attorney, it is incumbent upon the latter to show that the provisions are fair and reasonable and were known and understood by the client. (Matter of Howell, 215 N. Y. 466, 472.) At least no undue advantage can be taken of the relationship. (Rodkinson v. Haecker, 248 N. Y. 480.)

Without intending to indicate approval of all of the statements of the Surrogate concerning the conduct of the respondents, we affirm the decree appealed from, with costs, for the reason that we find that jurisdiction existed under section 231-a of the Surrogate’s Court Act (Matter of Campbell, 289 N. Y. 509) and there was a sufficient basis in the evidence for the relief granted.

Present—Martin, P. J., Untermyer, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Decree unanimously affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The fixation of the amount for services was made at a time after the rendition of the services, when the relation of attorney and client had existed for a long period of time and was still in force. In this State it has been held that as to the contracts made under such circumstances, which are beneficial to the attorney, it is incumbent upon the latter to show that the provisions are fair and reasonable and were known and understood by the client. (Matter of Howell, 215 N. Y. 466, 472.) At least no undue advantage can be taken of the relationship. (Rodkinson v. Haecker, 248 N. Y. 480.)

Without intending to indicate approval of all of the statements of the Surrogate concerning the conduct of the respondents, we affirm the decree appealed from, with costs, for the reason that we find that jurisdiction existed under section 231-a of the Surrogate’s Court Act (Matter of Campbell, 289 N. Y. 509) and there was a sufficient basis in the evidence for the relief granted.

Present—Martin, P. J., Untermyer, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Decree unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D. 723, 40 N.Y.S.2d 956, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hallewell-nyappdiv-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack