In re the Estate of Mintz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Mintz

71 A.D.3d 678, 894 N.Y.S.2d 885

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

DecidedMarch 2, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 71 A.D.3d 678 (In re the Estate of Mintz) 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 Mintz, 71 A.D.3d 678, 894 N.Y.S.2d 885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In a probate proceeding in which the successor trustee of three inter vivos trusts petitioned to judicially settle the accounts of those trusts, Louis R. Rosenthal, the attorney for the successor trustee, appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Lopez Torres, S.), dated September 29, 2008, as, upon a decision of the same court dated July 14, 2008, awarded him an attorney’s fee in the principal sum of only $5,000.

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

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Surrogate’s Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding the appellant an attorney’s fee in the sum of only $5,000 (see Matter of Mormin, 66 AD3d 686 [2009]; Matter of Mero, 62 AD3d 1003 [2009]).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkin and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

In a probate proceeding in which the successor trustee of three inter vivos trusts petitioned to judicially settle the accounts of those trusts, Louis R. Rosenthal, the attorney for the successor trustee, appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Lopez Torres, S.), dated September 29, 2008, as, upon a decision of the same court dated July 14, 2008, awarded him an attorney’s fee in the principal sum of only $5,000.

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

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Surrogate’s Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding the appellant an attorney’s fee in the sum of only $5,000 (see Matter of Mormin, 66 AD3d 686 [2009]; Matter of Mero, 62 AD3d 1003 [2009]).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkin and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 678, 894 N.Y.S.2d 885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-mintz-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack