In re the Estate of Burlein

26 A.D.2d 667, 272 N.Y.S.2d 429, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3739
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 5, 1966
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 26 A.D.2d 667 (In re the Estate of Burlein) 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 of Burlein, 26 A.D.2d 667, 272 N.Y.S.2d 429, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3739 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Opinion

In a proceeding under section 231-a of the Surrogate’s Court Act, to fix and determine the compensation of the attorney for a coexeeutrix of a decedent for services to her personally, petitioner appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, entered September 3, 1964, which, on reargument, denied the petition. Decree reversed on the law and the facts and application granted to the extent of awarding petitioner a $1,000 fee, with costs payable by respondent personally, Findings of fact contained in the Surrogate’s decisions which are inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings made as indicated herein. In our opinion, the record discloses that no conflict of interest was involved under the precise facts at bar. Appellant represented respondent individually as well as in her capacity of estate representative. Such representation was fully disclosed to all interested parties. No objection to the arrangement had ever been raised by an adverse party. Furthermore, after six years of protracted litigation without such objection, we find an implicit consent by the adverse parties. Respondent, being a “ person interested ” in the estate within the intendment of section 231-a of the Surrogate’s Court Act, the learned Surrogate ought to have fixed and determined appellant’s compensation for services rendered to respondent in her individual capacity. We award appellant legal fees of $1,000. Payment of such amount must be made out of the respondent’s share in the estate since said services were beneficial to her in her individual capacity only (Matter of Frame, 245 App. Div. 675). Christ, 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

Related

In re Brown
182 Misc. 2d 172 (New York Supreme Court, 1999)
In re the Estate of Rubin
147 Misc. 2d 981 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1990)
Matter of Estate of Stephens
574 P.2d 67 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 A.D.2d 667, 272 N.Y.S.2d 429, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-burlein-nyappdiv-1966.