In re the Estate of Levy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Levy

135 A.D.2d 540, 522 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52487

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 135 A.D.2d 540 (In re the Estate of Levy) 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 Levy, 135 A.D.2d 540, 522 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52487 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding to fix attorney’s fees pursuant to SCPA 2110, Herbert Levy appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Bloom, S.), dated December 29, 1986, which awarded the petitioner a fee of $1,000 and directed that it be paid by him personally.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed, with costs payable by the appellant personally.

The Surrogate awarded a legal fee of $1,000 to the petitioner. The respondent alleges that this award was improper because the petitioner was compensated by a previous decree. We disagree.

The petitioner had served as counsel to the respondent during the settling of the decedent’s estate. The respondent retained the petitioner in his two capacities: as coexecutor and as colegatee. The petitioner had been awarded legal fees as the executor’s counsel in 1984 without prejudice to collect fees as the respondent’s individual counsel (Matter of Levy, 111 AD2d 849). The instant proceeding was commenced to recover legal fees generated from services rendered to the respondent in his individual capacity. When a party appears in several capacities, a previous action will not bar another brought in a different capacity (Siegel, NY Prac § 459, at 607).

The respondent also claims that because the petitioner was discharged for cause, it cannot claim fees due (Crowley v Wolf, 281 NY 59). However, there is no support in the record for any finding other than that the petitioner’s services were terminated without cause. The setting of $1,000 as the value [541]*541of the services was not an abuse of the Surrogate’s discretion. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding to fix attorney’s fees pursuant to SCPA 2110, Herbert Levy appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Bloom, S.), dated December 29, 1986, which awarded the petitioner a fee of $1,000 and directed that it be paid by him personally.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed, with costs payable by the appellant personally.

The Surrogate awarded a legal fee of $1,000 to the petitioner. The respondent alleges that this award was improper because the petitioner was compensated by a previous decree. We disagree.

The petitioner had served as counsel to the respondent during the settling of the decedent’s estate. The respondent retained the petitioner in his two capacities: as coexecutor and as colegatee. The petitioner had been awarded legal fees as the executor’s counsel in 1984 without prejudice to collect fees as the respondent’s individual counsel (Matter of Levy, 111 AD2d 849). The instant proceeding was commenced to recover legal fees generated from services rendered to the respondent in his individual capacity. When a party appears in several capacities, a previous action will not bar another brought in a different capacity (Siegel, NY Prac § 459, at 607).

The respondent also claims that because the petitioner was discharged for cause, it cannot claim fees due (Crowley v Wolf, 281 NY 59). However, there is no support in the record for any finding other than that the petitioner’s services were terminated without cause. The setting of $1,000 as the value [541]*541of the services was not an abuse of the Surrogate’s discretion. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A.D.2d 540, 522 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-levy-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack