In re the Estate of Serafim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Serafim

140 A.D.2d 350, 527 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4603

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

DecidedMay 2, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.2d 350, 527 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-serafim-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack