In re the Estate of Quattrocchi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Quattrocchi

293 A.D.2d 481, 739 N.Y.S.2d 642, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3345

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

DecidedApril 1, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 293 A.D.2d 481 (In re the Estate of Quattrocchi) 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 Quattrocchi, 293 A.D.2d 481, 739 N.Y.S.2d 642, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3345 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding to settle the account of the estate of Joseph A. Quattrocchi, the petitioner, Amanda Libutti, appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Richmond County (Fusco, S.), dated January 4, 2001, which, inter alia, denied her a fiduciary’s commission, awarded fiduciary’s commissions to the objectants, and awarded an attorney’s fee to the attorney for the objectants, payable out of the estate.

Ordered that the decree is modified, on the facts, by deleting so much of the fifth decretal paragraph thereof as awarded fiduciary’s commissions to the objectants; as so modified, the decree is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the petitioner to the objectants.

In light of the appellant’s extensive delay in selling the real properties which comprised the estate, the Surrogate properly denied her a fiduciary’s commission (see Matter of Flynn, 205 AD2d 326; Matter of Shulsky, 34 AD2d 545; Matter of Simpson, 61 Misc 2d 307; Matter of Engvelt, NYLJ, May 27, 1969, at 18, [482]*482col 4 [Sur Ct, Kings County 1969]; see also Matter of Weston, 91 NY 502; Matter of Janes, 223 AD2d 20). However, the Surrogate improperly awarded such a fee to the objectants, who did not render any fiduciary services to the estate (see Matter of Rutlege, 162 NY 31; Matter of James, 23 AD2d 529; Matter of Marshall, 15 AD2d 310).

Additionally, in light of the efforts of the objectants to compel the petitioner to list the properties at realistic asking prices, and their efforts in augmenting the estate by saving it fiduciary’s commissions, the Surrogate properly awarded an attorney’s fee to their attorney (see Matter of Scarsella, 195 AD2d 513, 516; Matter of Kinzler, 195 AD2d 464; Matter of Burns, 126 AD2d 809, 812; cf. Matter of Lirakis, 111 AD2d 924; Matter of Bellinger, 55 AD2d 448).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Altman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding to settle the account of the estate of Joseph A. Quattrocchi, the petitioner, Amanda Libutti, appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Richmond County (Fusco, S.), dated January 4, 2001, which, inter alia, denied her a fiduciary’s commission, awarded fiduciary’s commissions to the objectants, and awarded an attorney’s fee to the attorney for the objectants, payable out of the estate.

Ordered that the decree is modified, on the facts, by deleting so much of the fifth decretal paragraph thereof as awarded fiduciary’s commissions to the objectants; as so modified, the decree is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the petitioner to the objectants.

In light of the appellant’s extensive delay in selling the real properties which comprised the estate, the Surrogate properly denied her a fiduciary’s commission (see Matter of Flynn, 205 AD2d 326; Matter of Shulsky, 34 AD2d 545; Matter of Simpson, 61 Misc 2d 307; Matter of Engvelt, NYLJ, May 27, 1969, at 18, [482]*482col 4 [Sur Ct, Kings County 1969]; see also Matter of Weston, 91 NY 502; Matter of Janes, 223 AD2d 20). However, the Surrogate improperly awarded such a fee to the objectants, who did not render any fiduciary services to the estate (see Matter of Rutlege, 162 NY 31; Matter of James, 23 AD2d 529; Matter of Marshall, 15 AD2d 310).

Additionally, in light of the efforts of the objectants to compel the petitioner to list the properties at realistic asking prices, and their efforts in augmenting the estate by saving it fiduciary’s commissions, the Surrogate properly awarded an attorney’s fee to their attorney (see Matter of Scarsella, 195 AD2d 513, 516; Matter of Kinzler, 195 AD2d 464; Matter of Burns, 126 AD2d 809, 812; cf. Matter of Lirakis, 111 AD2d 924; Matter of Bellinger, 55 AD2d 448).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Altman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 481, 739 N.Y.S.2d 642, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-quattrocchi-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack