In re the Estate of Christopher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Christopher

280 A.D.2d 546, 720 N.Y.S.2d 391, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1966

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 546 (In re the Estate of Christopher) 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 Christopher, 280 A.D.2d 546, 720 N.Y.S.2d 391, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1966 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2110, (1) the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, S.), dated November 24, 1999, as denied the petition for legal fees and granted that branch of the motion of Mary Lynn Greenough, Rush Greenough IV, and Christopher S. Greenough to dismiss the petition, and (2) Mary Lynn Greenough, Rush Greenough IV, and Christopher S. Greenough cross-appeal from so much of the same order as denied those branches of their motion which were to strike scandalous and prejudicial matter and to impose sanctions against the petitioner and his attorney.

Ordered that the notice of cross appeal is treated as an application for leave to cross-appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the motion which was to strike scandalous and prejudicial matter, and leave to appeal is granted (see, CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, because there was no finding of misconduct on the part of his sister, Mary Lynn Greenough, the only other beneficiary of their father’s estate, the Surrogate’s Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petition seeking payment of his attorney’s fees solely from her share of the proceeds of the estate (see, Matter of Graham, 238 AD2d 682; Matter of Burns, 126 AD2d 809). The Surrogate’s Court also did not err in denying the application of Mary Lynn Greenough, Rush Greenough IV, and Christopher S. Greenough for the imposition of sanctions. Although the petition for attorney’s fees was without merit, it did not rise to the level of frivolous conduct necessary for the imposition of sanctions (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [a], [c]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are either academic, unpreserved for appellate review, or without merit. Ritter, J. P., Altman, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2110, (1) the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, S.), dated November 24, 1999, as denied the petition for legal fees and granted that branch of the motion of Mary Lynn Greenough, Rush Greenough IV, and Christopher S. Greenough to dismiss the petition, and (2) Mary Lynn Greenough, Rush Greenough IV, and Christopher S. Greenough cross-appeal from so much of the same order as denied those branches of their motion which were to strike scandalous and prejudicial matter and to impose sanctions against the petitioner and his attorney.

Ordered that the notice of cross appeal is treated as an application for leave to cross-appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the motion which was to strike scandalous and prejudicial matter, and leave to appeal is granted (see, CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, because there was no finding of misconduct on the part of his sister, Mary Lynn Greenough, the only other beneficiary of their father’s estate, the Surrogate’s Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petition seeking payment of his attorney’s fees solely from her share of the proceeds of the estate (see, Matter of Graham, 238 AD2d 682; Matter of Burns, 126 AD2d 809). The Surrogate’s Court also did not err in denying the application of Mary Lynn Greenough, Rush Greenough IV, and Christopher S. Greenough for the imposition of sanctions. Although the petition for attorney’s fees was without merit, it did not rise to the level of frivolous conduct necessary for the imposition of sanctions (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [a], [c]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are either academic, unpreserved for appellate review, or without merit. Ritter, J. P., Altman, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 546, 720 N.Y.S.2d 391, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1966, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-christopher-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack