In re the Estate of Secor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Secor

39 A.D.2d 575, 331 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4894

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 17, 1972·Published

Opinion

Decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Rockland County, dated June 28, 1971, fixing $11,000 as the compensation of appellant, an attorney, “for all his legal services rendered and to be rendered to the estate ” of the decedent “ through final accounting and distribution by the executor ”, affirmed, without costs. Ordinarily the “ authority of the surrogate is limited to fixing the value of services already rendered, but not those to be rendered in the future ” (3A Warren’s Heaton Surrogates’ Court [6th ed.], § 295, par. 5, subpar. [g]; Matter of Starbuck, 225 App. Div. 689). But here the services yet to be rendered were of such a trifling nature when compared to those already rendered that it is our view that the fact that the Surrogate fixed the attorney’s [576]*576compensation for services rendered and to be rendered is not such as to require modification of the decree (cf. Matter of Tomany, 258 App. Div. 1060). Hopkins, Acting P. J.,. Martuscello, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Rockland County, dated June 28, 1971, fixing $11,000 as the compensation of appellant, an attorney, “for all his legal services rendered and to be rendered to the estate ” of the decedent “ through final accounting and distribution by the executor ”, affirmed, without costs. Ordinarily the “ authority of the surrogate is limited to fixing the value of services already rendered, but not those to be rendered in the future ” (3A Warren’s Heaton Surrogates’ Court [6th ed.], § 295, par. 5, subpar. [g]; Matter of Starbuck, 225 App. Div. 689). But here the services yet to be rendered were of such a trifling nature when compared to those already rendered that it is our view that the fact that the Surrogate fixed the attorney’s [576]*576compensation for services rendered and to be rendered is not such as to require modification of the decree (cf. Matter of Tomany, 258 App. Div. 1060). Hopkins, Acting P. J.,. Martuscello, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

In re the Estate of Secor, 39 A.D.2d 575, 331 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

39 A.D.2d 575 (In re the Estate of Secor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related