In re the Estate of Massey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Massey

73 A.D.3d 1179, 900 N.Y.S.2d 892

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

DecidedMay 25, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 73 A.D.3d 1179 (In re the Estate of Massey) 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 Massey, 73 A.D.3d 1179, 900 N.Y.S.2d 892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an administration proceeding in which the Public Administrator petitioned to judicially settle the account, nonparty Russo, Fox & Karl appeals from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Riordan, S.), dated May 29, 2009, as, upon granting that branch of the petition which was to fix and determine the attorney’s fee pertaining to legal services it provided to the former administrator of the estate of Angela Massey, awarded it the sum of only $5,000, and directed it to refund all sums paid in excess of that amount to the estate.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

“The Surrogate’s Court bears the ultimate responsibility for deciding what constitutes a reasonable attorney’s fee, and the evaluation of what constitutes a reasonable attorney’s fee is a matter within the sound discretion of the court” (Matter of Goliger, 58 AD3d 732, 732 [2009]; see Matter of Katz, 55 AD3d 836, 837 [2008]). Furthermore, “[i]n evaluating what constitutes a reasonable attorney’s fee, factors to be considered include the time and labor expended, the difficulty of the questions involved and the required skill to handle the problems presented, the attorney’s experience, ability, and reputation, the amount involved, the customary fee charged for such services, and the results obtained” (Matter of Goliger, 58 AD3d at 732 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Freeman, 34 [1180]*1180NY2d 1, 9 [1974]; Matter of Potts, 123 Misc 346 [1924], affd 213 App Div 59 [1925], affd 241 NY 593 [1925]).

In this case, contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Surrogate’s Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding it an attorney’s fee in the sum of $5,000, and in directing it to refund all sums paid in excess of that amount to the estate (see Matter of Goliger, 58 AD3d at 733; Matter of Tendler, 12 AD3d 520, 521 [2004]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Fisher, Florio and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

In an administration proceeding in which the Public Administrator petitioned to judicially settle the account, nonparty Russo, Fox & Karl appeals from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Riordan, S.), dated May 29, 2009, as, upon granting that branch of the petition which was to fix and determine the attorney’s fee pertaining to legal services it provided to the former administrator of the estate of Angela Massey, awarded it the sum of only $5,000, and directed it to refund all sums paid in excess of that amount to the estate.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

“The Surrogate’s Court bears the ultimate responsibility for deciding what constitutes a reasonable attorney’s fee, and the evaluation of what constitutes a reasonable attorney’s fee is a matter within the sound discretion of the court” (Matter of Goliger, 58 AD3d 732, 732 [2009]; see Matter of Katz, 55 AD3d 836, 837 [2008]). Furthermore, “[i]n evaluating what constitutes a reasonable attorney’s fee, factors to be considered include the time and labor expended, the difficulty of the questions involved and the required skill to handle the problems presented, the attorney’s experience, ability, and reputation, the amount involved, the customary fee charged for such services, and the results obtained” (Matter of Goliger, 58 AD3d at 732 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Freeman, 34 [1180]*1180NY2d 1, 9 [1974]; Matter of Potts, 123 Misc 346 [1924], affd 213 App Div 59 [1925], affd 241 NY 593 [1925]).

In this case, contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Surrogate’s Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding it an attorney’s fee in the sum of $5,000, and in directing it to refund all sums paid in excess of that amount to the estate (see Matter of Goliger, 58 AD3d at 733; Matter of Tendler, 12 AD3d 520, 521 [2004]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Fisher, Florio and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.3d 1179, 900 N.Y.S.2d 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-massey-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack