In re the Accounting of Plumb

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Accounting of Plumb

274 A.D. 932, 83 N.Y.S.2d 512, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4150

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 274 A.D. 932 (In re the Accounting of Plumb) 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 the Accounting of Plumb, 274 A.D. 932, 83 N.Y.S.2d 512, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4150 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Appellant, an attorney, appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Dutchess County, which fixed the amount of his fees, pursuant to section 231-a of the Surrogate’s Court Act. Appellant was not the attorney for respondents, but procured the probate of a will which had been destroyed after the death of the testatrix. As the result of his services, appellant’s client and a legatee named in the will obtained shares in the estate which they would not have received if the deceased had died intestate, at the expense of the distributees who would have shared decedent’s estate, had she died intestate. There was testimony before the Surrogate, which he may have credited, that appellant had agreed to render services to his client for a nominal fee, to be paid from the estate. Under such circumstances we are unable to say that the allowance made to the appellant was inadequate, or that the determination made by the Surrogate constituted an abuse of discretion. (Cf. Matter of Winburn, 160 Misc. 49; Matter of Bardol, 6 N. Y. S. 2d 46.) Decree unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ.

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

Appellant, an attorney, appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Dutchess County, which fixed the amount of his fees, pursuant to section 231-a of the Surrogate’s Court Act. Appellant was not the attorney for respondents, but procured the probate of a will which had been destroyed after the death of the testatrix. As the result of his services, appellant’s client and a legatee named in the will obtained shares in the estate which they would not have received if the deceased had died intestate, at the expense of the distributees who would have shared decedent’s estate, had she died intestate. There was testimony before the Surrogate, which he may have credited, that appellant had agreed to render services to his client for a nominal fee, to be paid from the estate. Under such circumstances we are unable to say that the allowance made to the appellant was inadequate, or that the determination made by the Surrogate constituted an abuse of discretion. (Cf. Matter of Winburn, 160 Misc. 49; Matter of Bardol, 6 N. Y. S. 2d 46.) Decree unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 A.D. 932, 83 N.Y.S.2d 512, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-accounting-of-plumb-nyappdiv-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack