In re Schneider

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Schneider

24 A.D.3d 225, 804 N.Y.S.2d 920

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 13, 2005·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County (Lee L. Holzman, S.), entered on or about February 24, 2004, which, in a probate proceeding, upon the proponent’s motion to reargue, adhered to a prior order awarding compensation to the objectant’s guardian ad litem, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the compensation awarded the guardian ad litem is sizeable in comparison to the estate, we are satisfied that the Surrogate gave that factor appropriate weight in an exercise of discretion that, in view of the services rendered, was appropriately “conservative” (cf. Matter of Burk, 6 AD2d 429 [1958]; see Matter of Hassett, 47 AD2d 569, 570 [1975]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Marlow, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County (Lee L. Holzman, S.), entered on or about February 24, 2004, which, in a probate proceeding, upon the proponent’s motion to reargue, adhered to a prior order awarding compensation to the objectant’s guardian ad litem, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the compensation awarded the guardian ad litem is sizeable in comparison to the estate, we are satisfied that the Surrogate gave that factor appropriate weight in an exercise of discretion that, in view of the services rendered, was appropriately “conservative” (cf. Matter of Burk, 6 AD2d 429 [1958]; see Matter of Hassett, 47 AD2d 569, 570 [1975]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Marlow, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

In re Schneider, 24 A.D.3d 225, 804 N.Y.S.2d 920 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

24 A.D.3d 225 (In re Schneider) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related