In re the Estate of Shen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Shen

157 A.D.2d 731, 551 N.Y.S.2d 786, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 506

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 157 A.D.2d 731 (In re the Estate of Shen) 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 Shen, 157 A.D.2d 731, 551 N.Y.S.2d 786, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 506 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In an accounting proceeding, the executor, Sylvan R. Novick, appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County (Laurino, S.), dated September 22,1988, which, inter alia, directed that he pay part of the attorney’s fees from his commission.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We find that the Surrogate did not improvidently exercise his discretion in setting aside a settlement of the estate by agreement and in ordering that the executor pay a part of the attorney’s fees from his statutory commission since a substantial portion of the services performed by the attorney were executorial in nature (see, Matter of Wolf, 147 AD2d 487; Matter of Zorek, 131 AD2d 580; Matter of Hertz, 128 AD2d 780).

[732]*732Moreover, the Surrogate did not act improperly in reducing the attorney’s fees from $14,500 to $12,500 (see, Matter of Lanyi, 147 AD2d 644; Matter of Wolf, supra; Matter of Moody, 125 AD2d 673). Mollen, P. J., Brown, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

In an accounting proceeding, the executor, Sylvan R. Novick, appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County (Laurino, S.), dated September 22,1988, which, inter alia, directed that he pay part of the attorney’s fees from his commission.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We find that the Surrogate did not improvidently exercise his discretion in setting aside a settlement of the estate by agreement and in ordering that the executor pay a part of the attorney’s fees from his statutory commission since a substantial portion of the services performed by the attorney were executorial in nature (see, Matter of Wolf, 147 AD2d 487; Matter of Zorek, 131 AD2d 580; Matter of Hertz, 128 AD2d 780).

[732]*732Moreover, the Surrogate did not act improperly in reducing the attorney’s fees from $14,500 to $12,500 (see, Matter of Lanyi, 147 AD2d 644; Matter of Wolf, supra; Matter of Moody, 125 AD2d 673). Mollen, P. J., Brown, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 A.D.2d 731, 551 N.Y.S.2d 786, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-shen-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack