In re the Estate of Lenk

218 A.D.2d 802, 631 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8955
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 28, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 218 A.D.2d 802 (In re the Estate of Lenk) 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 Lenk, 218 A.D.2d 802, 631 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8955 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—In a proceeding to judicially settle the account of Shirley Morse, executrix of the estate of Pauline Lenk, (1) the estate of Pauline Lenk appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County (Nahman, S.), dated August 6, 1993, as directed the payment of legal fees in the amount of only $5,000 and directed the law firm of Felt-man, Karesh, Major & Farbman to return to the estate all legal fees that it had received in excess of $5,000, and (2) the law firm of Feltman, Karesh, Major & Farbman appeals from so much of an order of the same court dated October 5, 1993, as denied its motion to withdraw as counsel for the estate.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated August 6,1993, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated October 5, 1993, is reversed insofar as appealed from, as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the law firm’s motion to withdraw is granted.

The estate is not aggrieved by the order dated August 6, 1993, reducing the legal fees payable to the law firm of Felt-man, Karesh, Major & Farbman (hereinafter the law firm) for services rendered to the estate of Pauline Lenk (see, CPLR 5511; Matter of Sold, 215 AD2d 566; Matter of Serafim, 140 AD2d 350).

In light of the executrix’s refusal to pay the law firm a reasonable fee for the services it rendered on her behalf, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the law firm’s motion to withdraw as counsel for the estate (see, Galvano v Galvano, 193 AD2d 779, 780). Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (Knox)
2020 NY Slip Op 3368 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
In re the Estate of Gottschen
256 A.D.2d 519 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
218 A.D.2d 802, 631 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-lenk-nyappdiv-1995.