In re the Estate Gurland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate Gurland

22 A.D.2d 696, 253 N.Y.S.2d 798, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3078

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

DecidedOctober 19, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 696 (In re the Estate Gurland) 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 Estate Gurland, 22 A.D.2d 696, 253 N.Y.S.2d 798, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3078 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In a probate proceeding, Robert Garland, coexecutor and legatee under the will of the decedent, appeals from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, entered January 24, 1964, as granted $1,012.50 to Ernest R. Latham, Esq. for counsel fees, said amount to be a lien upon appellant’s share of the decedent’s estate. Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Surrogate’s Court for the taking of proof as to the legal services performed by respondent on 'behalf of the appellant and as to the reasonable value of such services. The respondent’s fee should not [697]*697have been fixed without adequate proof as to the nature and extent of the services performed by him (cf. Matter of Pelgram, 239 App. Div. 18, 21). His affidavit is vague in this regard. Moreover, issues of fact are raised which are determinable only upon a hearing (cf. Matter of Post, 155 Misc. 389, 391; Matter of Britton, 187 Misc. 70, 82). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a probate proceeding, Robert Garland, coexecutor and legatee under the will of the decedent, appeals from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, entered January 24, 1964, as granted $1,012.50 to Ernest R. Latham, Esq. for counsel fees, said amount to be a lien upon appellant’s share of the decedent’s estate. Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Surrogate’s Court for the taking of proof as to the legal services performed by respondent on 'behalf of the appellant and as to the reasonable value of such services. The respondent’s fee should not [697]*697have been fixed without adequate proof as to the nature and extent of the services performed by him (cf. Matter of Pelgram, 239 App. Div. 18, 21). His affidavit is vague in this regard. Moreover, issues of fact are raised which are determinable only upon a hearing (cf. Matter of Post, 155 Misc. 389, 391; Matter of Britton, 187 Misc. 70, 82). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 696, 253 N.Y.S.2d 798, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-gurland-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack