In re the Estate of Friedlander

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Friedlander

18 A.D.2d 675, 235 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6487

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 675 (In re the Estate of Friedlander) 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 Friedlander, 18 A.D.2d 675, 235 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6487 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding under section 231-a of the Surrogate’s Court Act, to fix and determine the compensation of the petitioner, as attorney for the executrix of the testator, for services rendered to the estate, the executrix appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County, entered June 25, 1962 upon the decision of the court, after a nonjury trial, fixing the compensation at the sum of $3,750. Decree modified on the facts, by reducing to $2,300 the sum fixed and determined as petitioner’s compensation. As so modified, the decree is affirmed, with costs to both parties payahle out of the estate. Findings of fact which may be inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. [676]*676In our opinion, the compensation as fixed in the decree was excessive. Under all the circumstances we find the sum of $2,300 to be reasonable for the services performed by petitioner as attorney, and we fix his compensation accordingly. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding under section 231-a of the Surrogate’s Court Act, to fix and determine the compensation of the petitioner, as attorney for the executrix of the testator, for services rendered to the estate, the executrix appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County, entered June 25, 1962 upon the decision of the court, after a nonjury trial, fixing the compensation at the sum of $3,750. Decree modified on the facts, by reducing to $2,300 the sum fixed and determined as petitioner’s compensation. As so modified, the decree is affirmed, with costs to both parties payahle out of the estate. Findings of fact which may be inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. [676]*676In our opinion, the compensation as fixed in the decree was excessive. Under all the circumstances we find the sum of $2,300 to be reasonable for the services performed by petitioner as attorney, and we fix his compensation accordingly. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 675, 235 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-friedlander-nyappdiv-1962.