In re the Estate of Serafim

140 A.D.2d 350, 527 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4603
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 2, 1988·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

The appellant executrix is not aggrieved by the Surrogate’s exercise of his discretion to reduce the fees of the attorney for the estate (see, CPLR 5511). Moreover, the reduction of the fees was made after both the executrix and the attorney defaulted on the hearing set to determine the reasonableness of their commissions and fees. Therefore, since the order was entered on default, no appeal lies therefrom (see, Lo Cicero v J.F.K. Intl. Airport, 131 AD2d 305). In any event, with regard [351]*351to the merits, we see no abuse of discretion by the Surrogate in his invocation of his rule requiring fiduciaries who are attorneys to file an accounting within one year (see, Matter of Stalbe, 130 Misc 2d 725). Brown, J. P., Kunzeman, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

In re the Estate of Serafim, 140 A.D.2d 350, 527 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4603 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

140 A.D.2d 350 (In re the Estate of Serafim) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re the Estate of Lenk
218 A.D.2d 802 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
In re the Estate of Sold
215 A.D.2d 566 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)