In re the Estate of Fales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Fales

294 A.D.2d 165, 741 N.Y.S.2d 414, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4817

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

DecidedMay 9, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 294 A.D.2d 165 (In re the Estate of Fales) 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 Fales, 294 A.D.2d 165, 741 N.Y.S.2d 414, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4817 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Renee Roth, S.), entered on or about July 13, 2001, which denied respondent’s motion to modify the decree entered September 15, 1998, settling the trustee’s first intermediate accounting, by reducing the compensation allowed to the fiduciary’s attorneys, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Respondent contends that he had notice only of a claim for a $5,000 counsel fee as part of petitioner’s intermediate accounting, but no notice of a claim for a $65,000 fee. Respondent claims that the alleged lack of notice amounted to a denial of due process, and raises several challenges to the fee provision in the decree. Respondent’s claim of a violation of due process, as well as his claims of estoppel, waiver and an ambiguous settlement agreement, are raised for the first time on appeal. In any event, the record shows that respondent had notice reasonably calculated to apprise him of the pendency of the proceeding and afford him an opportunity to present his objections (see, Matter of Case v Monroe Community Coll., 89 NY2d 438, 442). More specifically, respondent had repeated actual notice, personally or through his counsel, of the relevant [166]*166requests for counsel fee approval. To the extent that the remainder of respondent’s appellate contentions are appropriately preserved, they are without merit. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Renee Roth, S.), entered on or about July 13, 2001, which denied respondent’s motion to modify the decree entered September 15, 1998, settling the trustee’s first intermediate accounting, by reducing the compensation allowed to the fiduciary’s attorneys, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Respondent contends that he had notice only of a claim for a $5,000 counsel fee as part of petitioner’s intermediate accounting, but no notice of a claim for a $65,000 fee. Respondent claims that the alleged lack of notice amounted to a denial of due process, and raises several challenges to the fee provision in the decree. Respondent’s claim of a violation of due process, as well as his claims of estoppel, waiver and an ambiguous settlement agreement, are raised for the first time on appeal. In any event, the record shows that respondent had notice reasonably calculated to apprise him of the pendency of the proceeding and afford him an opportunity to present his objections (see, Matter of Case v Monroe Community Coll., 89 NY2d 438, 442). More specifically, respondent had repeated actual notice, personally or through his counsel, of the relevant [166]*166requests for counsel fee approval. To the extent that the remainder of respondent’s appellate contentions are appropriately preserved, they are without merit. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 165, 741 N.Y.S.2d 414, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-fales-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack