In re the Estate of Hughes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Hughes

214 A.D.2d 353, 625 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4197

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

DecidedApril 11, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 214 A.D.2d 353 (In re the Estate of Hughes) 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 Hughes, 214 A.D.2d 353, 625 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4197 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered on or about September 13, 1993, which granted petitioner administratrix’s application pursuant to SCPA 2110 (3) for return of excessive attorney’s fees paid to appellant by the estate in the sum of $26,500, together with interest, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Appellant failed to sustain her burden of proving that the $26,500 paid to her by the estate was a fair and reasonable fee (see, Cohen v Ryan, 34 AD2d 789, 790), having proffered no evidence concerning the difficulty of the matter, the skill, time and labor required, her experience, ability and reputation, and the customary fee for similar services (see, Matter of Freeman, 34 NY2d 1, 9). Nor in the present circumstances did the Surrogate err in refusing to conduct a traverse hearing. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

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

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered on or about September 13, 1993, which granted petitioner administratrix’s application pursuant to SCPA 2110 (3) for return of excessive attorney’s fees paid to appellant by the estate in the sum of $26,500, together with interest, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Appellant failed to sustain her burden of proving that the $26,500 paid to her by the estate was a fair and reasonable fee (see, Cohen v Ryan, 34 AD2d 789, 790), having proffered no evidence concerning the difficulty of the matter, the skill, time and labor required, her experience, ability and reputation, and the customary fee for similar services (see, Matter of Freeman, 34 NY2d 1, 9). Nor in the present circumstances did the Surrogate err in refusing to conduct a traverse hearing. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 353, 625 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-hughes-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack