In re the Estate of Sharkey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Sharkey

64 A.D.2d 635

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

DecidedJuly 10, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 64 A.D.2d 635 (In re the Estate of Sharkey) 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 Sharkey, 64 A.D.2d 635 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding by an administratrix to fix the compensation of an attorney pursuant to SCPA 2110, the attorney appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, dated February 2, 1978, which fixed his compensation in the amount of $15,000 and directed him to refund to the administratrix the excess compensation received by him in the amount of $22,069.66. Order [637]*637affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements payable personally by the appellant. Since the services rendered by the attorney were, in effect, aimed at increasing the decedent’s estate, said services fall within SCPA 2110. We also hold that the reduction ordered in the attorney’s fee did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Shapiro, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding by an administratrix to fix the compensation of an attorney pursuant to SCPA 2110, the attorney appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, dated February 2, 1978, which fixed his compensation in the amount of $15,000 and directed him to refund to the administratrix the excess compensation received by him in the amount of $22,069.66. Order [637]*637affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements payable personally by the appellant. Since the services rendered by the attorney were, in effect, aimed at increasing the decedent’s estate, said services fall within SCPA 2110. We also hold that the reduction ordered in the attorney’s fee did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Shapiro, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A.D.2d 635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-sharkey-nyappdiv-1978.