In re the Estate of Hertz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Hertz

128 A.D.2d 780, 512 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44465

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 128 A.D.2d 780 (In re the Estate of Hertz) 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 Hertz, 128 A.D.2d 780, 512 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44465 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an accounting proceeding, the appeal is from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County (Laurino, S.), dated December 11, 1985, which, inter alia, directed that the executor pay part of the attorney’s and accountant’s fees from his commission.

[781]*781Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances herein, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it set aside a settlement of the estate by agreement and ordered that the executor pay a part of the attorney’s and accountant’s fees from his statutory commission (SCPA 2110, 2307; Matter of Schaich, 55 AD2d 914; Matter of Marri, 79 Misc 2d 990). The reimbursed payments were properly determined to be for performance of duties which the executor was legally bound to perform. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

In an accounting proceeding, the appeal is from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County (Laurino, S.), dated December 11, 1985, which, inter alia, directed that the executor pay part of the attorney’s and accountant’s fees from his commission.

[781]*781Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances herein, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it set aside a settlement of the estate by agreement and ordered that the executor pay a part of the attorney’s and accountant’s fees from his statutory commission (SCPA 2110, 2307; Matter of Schaich, 55 AD2d 914; Matter of Marri, 79 Misc 2d 990). The reimbursed payments were properly determined to be for performance of duties which the executor was legally bound to perform. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 780, 512 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-hertz-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack