In re the Estate of McNeil

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of McNeil

68 A.D.3d 773, 890 N.Y.2d 111

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 1, 2009·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

[774] Here, the Surrogate, in both the decision and the decree, failed to explain her reasoning for the guardian ad litem’s fee award and made no reference to any of the above factors. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, for the purpose of setting forth the factors considered and the reasons for its award (see Matter of Audrey J.S., 34 AD3d 820, 821 [2006]; Matter of Martha O.J., 22 AD3d 756, 757 [2005]; Matter of Catherine K., 13 AD3d 534, 536 [2004]).

We decide no issues at this time. Fisher, J.P., Santucci, Dickerson, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

[774] Here, the Surrogate, in both the decision and the decree, failed to explain her reasoning for the guardian ad litem’s fee award and made no reference to any of the above factors. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, for the purpose of setting forth the factors considered and the reasons for its award (see Matter of Audrey J.S., 34 AD3d 820, 821 [2006]; Matter of Martha O.J., 22 AD3d 756, 757 [2005]; Matter of Catherine K., 13 AD3d 534, 536 [2004]).

We decide no issues at this time. Fisher, J.P., Santucci, Dickerson, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.

In re the Estate of McNeil, 68 A.D.3d 773, 890 N.Y.2d 111 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

68 A.D.3d 773 (In re the Estate of McNeil) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related