In re the Estate of Cavallo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Cavallo

66 A.D.2d 674, 885 N.Y.S.2d 645

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

DecidedOctober 6, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 66 A.D.2d 674 (In re the Estate of Cavallo) 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 Cavallo, 66 A.D.2d 674, 885 N.Y.S.2d 645 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In a contested probate proceeding in which Behrins & Behrins, P.C., petitioned pursuant to SCPA 2110 to fix and determine an attorney’s fee, the proponent of the will appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Richmond County (Gigante, S.), dated January 29, 2008, as, upon a decision of the same court (Fusco, A.S.), dated December 27, 2007, directed that the fee for the object-ants’ attorney be paid from the estate.

Ordered that the decree is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs.

There is no evidence in the record that the legal services rendered by the petitioner, counsel for the objectants, benefitted or enlarged the estate. Rather, the petitioner’s services benefit-ted only its clients. Thus, the petitioner may seek compensation from its clients personally, and not from the estate generally (see Matter of Baxter [Gaynor], 196 AD2d 186, 190 [1994]; Matter of Bacharach, 12 AD2d 938 [1961]; Matter of Cannariato, 159 Misc 409, 410-411 [1936]). Dillon, J.P., Eng, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

In a contested probate proceeding in which Behrins & Behrins, P.C., petitioned pursuant to SCPA 2110 to fix and determine an attorney’s fee, the proponent of the will appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Richmond County (Gigante, S.), dated January 29, 2008, as, upon a decision of the same court (Fusco, A.S.), dated December 27, 2007, directed that the fee for the object-ants’ attorney be paid from the estate.

Ordered that the decree is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs.

There is no evidence in the record that the legal services rendered by the petitioner, counsel for the objectants, benefitted or enlarged the estate. Rather, the petitioner’s services benefit-ted only its clients. Thus, the petitioner may seek compensation from its clients personally, and not from the estate generally (see Matter of Baxter [Gaynor], 196 AD2d 186, 190 [1994]; Matter of Bacharach, 12 AD2d 938 [1961]; Matter of Cannariato, 159 Misc 409, 410-411 [1936]). Dillon, J.P., Eng, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.D.2d 674, 885 N.Y.S.2d 645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-cavallo-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack