In re Mayer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Mayer

19 A.D.2d 885, 244 N.Y.S.2d 370, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2821

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

DecidedNovember 26, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 885 (In re Mayer) 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 Mayer, 19 A.D.2d 885, 244 N.Y.S.2d 370, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2821 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on August 23, 1963, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by deleting from ordering paragraphs 6 (a) and 6 (b) the sums of $3,000 and $1,000, respectively, and substituting in lieu thereof the sums of $1,000 and $300, respectively, and, as so modified, the order is affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants payable out of the incompetent’s estate. The estate aggregated $169,032.61, the bulk of which was in the stock of a close corporation. There were no complications and the incompetent’s lawyer for about 20 years handled the proceedings. He asked for and received a fee of $1,750. The special guardian rendered routine services in this uncomplicated and uncontested incompetency proceeding. Though services on 15 different days are claimed, there is no information concerning time spent. Therefore, reduction from $3,000 to $1,000 is warranted (see Matter of Burh, 6 A D 2d 429). Similarly, the routine duties performed by the Commissioner in preparing for and conducting the two-hour hearing warrant a fee of $300, instead of the $1,000 awarded by Special Term. While the size of the incompetent’s estate is relevant, it is because most often it should serve as a limiting factor on fees allowed rather than as a justification for expansion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Bergan, JJ,

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

Order, entered on August 23, 1963, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by deleting from ordering paragraphs 6 (a) and 6 (b) the sums of $3,000 and $1,000, respectively, and substituting in lieu thereof the sums of $1,000 and $300, respectively, and, as so modified, the order is affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants payable out of the incompetent’s estate. The estate aggregated $169,032.61, the bulk of which was in the stock of a close corporation. There were no complications and the incompetent’s lawyer for about 20 years handled the proceedings. He asked for and received a fee of $1,750. The special guardian rendered routine services in this uncomplicated and uncontested incompetency proceeding. Though services on 15 different days are claimed, there is no information concerning time spent. Therefore, reduction from $3,000 to $1,000 is warranted (see Matter of Burh, 6 A D 2d 429). Similarly, the routine duties performed by the Commissioner in preparing for and conducting the two-hour hearing warrant a fee of $300, instead of the $1,000 awarded by Special Term. While the size of the incompetent’s estate is relevant, it is because most often it should serve as a limiting factor on fees allowed rather than as a justification for expansion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Bergan, JJ,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 885, 244 N.Y.S.2d 370, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mayer-nyappdiv-1963.