In re the Estate of Leopold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Leopold

285 A.D.2d 466, 727 N.Y.S.2d 345, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6937

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

DecidedJuly 2, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D.2d 466 (In re the Estate of Leopold) 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 Leopold, 285 A.D.2d 466, 727 N.Y.S.2d 345, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6937 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding, inter alia, [467]*467pursuant to SCPA 2110 to fix an attorney’s fee for each of four law firms, the petitioner appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Prudenti, S.), dated November 9, 1999, as denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable by the appellant personally to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Surrogate’s Court correctly found that the petitioner, by commencing the proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to SCPA 2110 to fix an attorney’s fee for each of four law firms, violated a stipulation of settlement (see, Wolstencroft v Sassower, 212 AD2d 598). Ritter, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding, inter alia, [467]*467pursuant to SCPA 2110 to fix an attorney’s fee for each of four law firms, the petitioner appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Prudenti, S.), dated November 9, 1999, as denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable by the appellant personally to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Surrogate’s Court correctly found that the petitioner, by commencing the proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to SCPA 2110 to fix an attorney’s fee for each of four law firms, violated a stipulation of settlement (see, Wolstencroft v Sassower, 212 AD2d 598). Ritter, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 466, 727 N.Y.S.2d 345, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-leopold-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack