In re Stellis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Stellis

216 A.D.2d 473, 628 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6407

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

DecidedJune 19, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 473 (In re Stellis) 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 Stellis, 216 A.D.2d 473, 628 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6407 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to settle the account of Lisa Stellis-Mackey, as executrix of the estate of Vivian Stellis, Stephan B. Gleich & Associates appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Scholnick, S.), dated November 12, 1993, entered upon a decision of the same court (Bloom, S.), dated September 3, 1993, as awarded it only $38,500 in attorneys fees for services to the estate.

[474]*474Ordered that the decree is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs payable by the nonparty-appellant.

It is well established that "the Surrogate bears the ultimate responsibility to decide what constitutes reasonable legal compensation” (Matter of Verplanck, 151 AD2d 767; see also, Matter of Stortecky v Mazzone, 85 NY2d 518; Matter of Phelan, 173 AD2d 621). The award of legal fees in the sum of $38,500 was not an improvident exercise of discretion. No hard and fast rule exists by which it can be determined what is reasonable compensation for an attorney in any given case (see, Matter of Bobeck, 196 AD2d 496). A court, however, may consider a number of factors including the time spent, the difficulties involved, the nature of the services, the amount involved, and the results obtained (see, Matter of Bobeck, supra). Moreover, a Surrogate is not bound by the attorney’s summary of the hours expended working on legal matters (see, Matter of Bobeck, supra). Copertino, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to settle the account of Lisa Stellis-Mackey, as executrix of the estate of Vivian Stellis, Stephan B. Gleich & Associates appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Scholnick, S.), dated November 12, 1993, entered upon a decision of the same court (Bloom, S.), dated September 3, 1993, as awarded it only $38,500 in attorneys fees for services to the estate.

[474]*474Ordered that the decree is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs payable by the nonparty-appellant.

It is well established that "the Surrogate bears the ultimate responsibility to decide what constitutes reasonable legal compensation” (Matter of Verplanck, 151 AD2d 767; see also, Matter of Stortecky v Mazzone, 85 NY2d 518; Matter of Phelan, 173 AD2d 621). The award of legal fees in the sum of $38,500 was not an improvident exercise of discretion. No hard and fast rule exists by which it can be determined what is reasonable compensation for an attorney in any given case (see, Matter of Bobeck, 196 AD2d 496). A court, however, may consider a number of factors including the time spent, the difficulties involved, the nature of the services, the amount involved, and the results obtained (see, Matter of Bobeck, supra). Moreover, a Surrogate is not bound by the attorney’s summary of the hours expended working on legal matters (see, Matter of Bobeck, supra). Copertino, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 473, 628 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-stellis-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack