In re the Estate of Gluck

279 A.D.2d 575, 720 N.Y.S.2d 149, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 580
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 22, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 279 A.D.2d 575 (In re the Estate of Gluck) 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 Gluck, 279 A.D.2d 575, 720 N.Y.S.2d 149, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 580 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2110 to fix an attorney’s fee, the appeal, as limited by [576]*576the appellants’ brief, is from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated January 12, 2000, as fixed the attorney’s fee of Timothy W. Sullivan, P. C., and Timothy W. Sullivan at $3,000, and directed that all moneys paid to the appellants in excess of that amount be refunded to the estate, with interest.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the appellants personally.

The determination of a reasonable attorney’s fee in a matter concerning an estate is within the sound discretion of the Surrogate’s Court (see, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881). The Surrogate is in the best position to assess the factors essential to fix an attorney’s fee, such as the reasonable value of the time, effort, and skill required and actually expended (see, Matter of Nicastro v Park, 186 AD2d 805; Lefkowitz v Van Ess, 166 AD2d 556; Shrauger v Shrauger, 146 AD2d 955, 956). This authority rests with the Surrogate regardless of the terms of a retainer agreement (see, Matter of Lanyi, 147 AD2d 644) or any agreement between the interested parties consenting to the amount of compensation requested (see, Matter of Von Hofe, 145 AD2d 424; see also, Matter of Phelan, 173 AD2d 621; Matter of Verplanck, 151 AD2d 767). The appellants failed to demonstrate that the compensation awarded by the Surrogate was not reasonable, or that they were entitled to a higher fee. Therefore, the Surrogate’s determination was a provident exercise of discretion (see, Matter of Lanyi, supra).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Cheryl LaBella Hoppenstein 2005 Trust
2025 NY Slip Op 05808 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Matter of Glusing
2024 NY Slip Op 24125 (Monroe Surrogate's Court, 2024)
Estate of Mayer
2024 NY Slip Op 31772(U) (Bronx Surrogate's Court, 2024)
Matter of Brody
158 N.Y.S.3d 853 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Linder
2017 NY Slip Op 6535 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Cincotta
139 A.D.3d 1058 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
In re BNY Mellon
47 Misc. 3d 481 (New York Surrogate's Court, 2014)
Matter of Talbot
122 A.D.3d 867 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
In re Weinberg
107 A.D.3d 729 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
In re Talbot
84 A.D.3d 967 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Ziegler v. McCallion & Associates LLP
68 A.D.3d 679 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re Thompson
66 A.D.3d 1035 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re Estate of Katz
55 A.D.3d 836 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re the Estate of Szkambara
53 A.D.3d 502 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re the Estate of Piterniak
38 A.D.3d 780 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
In re the Estate of Kunicki
35 A.D.3d 742 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
In re the Estate of Tendler
12 A.D.3d 520 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
In re the Estate of Hobert
7 Misc. 3d 447 (New York Surrogate's Court, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
279 A.D.2d 575, 720 N.Y.S.2d 149, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-gluck-nyappdiv-2001.