In re the Estate of McPherson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of McPherson

34 A.D.3d 813, 823 N.Y.S.2d 901

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

DecidedNovember 28, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.3d 813 (In re the Estate of McPherson) 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 McPherson, 34 A.D.3d 813, 823 N.Y.S.2d 901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In a probate proceeding Donald K. Koch appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Czygier, S.), entered October 24, 2005, as, upon, inter alia, an order of the same court dated November 14, 2003, which, among other things, revoked letters of administration C.T.A. issued to him, disallowed his claim for the sum of $7,664.88 in counsel fees and disbursements.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the appellant personally.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Surrogate’s Court providently exercised its discretion in revoking the appellant’s letters of administration C.T.A. and in disallowing his claim for counsel fees and disbursements. The appellant failed, without good cause, to comply with the orders dated June 21, 2001 and June 24, 2003 directing the sale of the estate’s realty (see SCPA 711 [3]; 719 [10]; Matter of Lanza, 19 AD3d 494 [2005]; Matter [814]*814of Cosentino, 218 AD2d 799 [1995]; Matter of Marsh, 173 AD2d 336 [1991]; cf. Matter of Maxwell, 13 AD3d. 630 [2004]). Schmidt, J.E, Adams, Santucci and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In a probate proceeding Donald K. Koch appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Czygier, S.), entered October 24, 2005, as, upon, inter alia, an order of the same court dated November 14, 2003, which, among other things, revoked letters of administration C.T.A. issued to him, disallowed his claim for the sum of $7,664.88 in counsel fees and disbursements.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the appellant personally.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Surrogate’s Court providently exercised its discretion in revoking the appellant’s letters of administration C.T.A. and in disallowing his claim for counsel fees and disbursements. The appellant failed, without good cause, to comply with the orders dated June 21, 2001 and June 24, 2003 directing the sale of the estate’s realty (see SCPA 711 [3]; 719 [10]; Matter of Lanza, 19 AD3d 494 [2005]; Matter [814]*814of Cosentino, 218 AD2d 799 [1995]; Matter of Marsh, 173 AD2d 336 [1991]; cf. Matter of Maxwell, 13 AD3d. 630 [2004]). Schmidt, J.E, Adams, Santucci and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 813, 823 N.Y.S.2d 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-mcpherson-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack