In re the Estate of Seigel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Seigel

18 A.D.3d 472, 794 N.Y.S.2d 905

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

DecidedMay 2, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 18 A.D.3d 472 (In re the Estate of Seigel) 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 Seigel, 18 A.D.3d 472, 794 N.Y.S.2d 905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to SCEA 2110 to fix an attorney’s fee, Stewart T. Schantz appeals (1), as limited by his brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Dutchess County [473]*473(Pagones, S.), dated July 24, 2003, as confirmed a referee’s report recommending that his fee be fixed in the principal sum of only $22,833.34, and (2) an order of the same court dated November 3, 2003.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,

Ordered that the decree is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that Lewis J. Sims, as executor, is awarded one bill of costs payable by the appellant personally.

The appellant contends that the Surrogate’s Court erred in precluding evidence relevant to the sale by the estate of certain real property at a hearing to determine the reasonable value of his legal services. However, this issue was resolved on a prior appeal when we concluded that “[a]n increase in the value of property which was already in the possession of the estate when the petitioner consulted the appellant does not constitute a recovery” (Matter of Seigel, 300 AD2d 668, 669 [2002]). In doing so, we rejected the appellant’s argument that the retainer agreement contemplated a contingency fee based upon the value or sales price of the property in question. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Spolzino and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to SCEA 2110 to fix an attorney’s fee, Stewart T. Schantz appeals (1), as limited by his brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Dutchess County [473]*473(Pagones, S.), dated July 24, 2003, as confirmed a referee’s report recommending that his fee be fixed in the principal sum of only $22,833.34, and (2) an order of the same court dated November 3, 2003.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,

Ordered that the decree is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that Lewis J. Sims, as executor, is awarded one bill of costs payable by the appellant personally.

The appellant contends that the Surrogate’s Court erred in precluding evidence relevant to the sale by the estate of certain real property at a hearing to determine the reasonable value of his legal services. However, this issue was resolved on a prior appeal when we concluded that “[a]n increase in the value of property which was already in the possession of the estate when the petitioner consulted the appellant does not constitute a recovery” (Matter of Seigel, 300 AD2d 668, 669 [2002]). In doing so, we rejected the appellant’s argument that the retainer agreement contemplated a contingency fee based upon the value or sales price of the property in question. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Spolzino and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 472, 794 N.Y.S.2d 905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-seigel-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack