In re the Estate of Mehl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Mehl

79 A.D.2d 605, 434 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13947

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 79 A.D.2d 605 (In re the Estate of Mehl) 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 Mehl, 79 A.D.2d 605, 434 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13947 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2110 for the determination of counsel fees for services rendered to a decedent’s estate, the former attorney appeals from (1) an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County, dated March 24, 1980, which, inter alia, determined the proposed issues for trial and (2) a further order of the same court, dated April S, 1980, which denied appellant’s application for an order framing the issues for trial in accordance with his proposed counterorder. Orders affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We perceive no error in the Surrogate’s framing of the limited issues for trial in this proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2110 for the fixation of counsel fees (see, also, 22 NYCRR 1830.27). Mangano, J. P. Gibbons, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2110 for the determination of counsel fees for services rendered to a decedent’s estate, the former attorney appeals from (1) an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County, dated March 24, 1980, which, inter alia, determined the proposed issues for trial and (2) a further order of the same court, dated April S, 1980, which denied appellant’s application for an order framing the issues for trial in accordance with his proposed counterorder. Orders affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We perceive no error in the Surrogate’s framing of the limited issues for trial in this proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2110 for the fixation of counsel fees (see, also, 22 NYCRR 1830.27). Mangano, J. P. Gibbons, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.2d 605, 434 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-mehl-nyappdiv-1980.