In re the Estate of Stauderman

New York Surrogate's Court

In re the Estate of Stauderman

56 Misc. 2d 580, 289 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1968 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1527

CourtNew York Surrogate's Court

DecidedMay 1, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 56 Misc. 2d 580 (In re the Estate of Stauderman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Surrogate's Court 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 Stauderman, 56 Misc. 2d 580, 289 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1968 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1527 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

John D. Bennett, J.

An order and two counterorders have been submitted for settlement pursuant to decision of this court dated April 8, 1968.

A controversy exists concerning what expenses are to be allowed to a nonparty pursuant to CPLR 3120 (subd. [b]). The court has been unable to find any case law on the question but has carefully reviewed the 1966 report of the Judicial Conference as well as the commentary of Professor Siegel in the McKinney reports (McKinneys Cons. Laws of N. Y., Book 7B, CPLR 3120). It may well be that attorneys’ fees would be allowed to a nonparty for services rendered during the course of the discovery and inspection but it is questionable whether or not attorneys’ fees would be allowed on the motion. In any event, it would appear that the allowance of fees is in the discretion of the court and because of the relationships of the parties and nonparty (the nonparty herein is the husband of one of the parties), the court will not allow the nonparty [581]*581expenses for Ms attorney. The court will allow, however, any reasonable and proper expenses incurred by the nonparty as the result of the order permitting the discovery and inspection. However, the said nonparty has not submitted an itemization of the reasonable and proper expenses incurred. The court will, therefore, not make such an allowance at this time but will permit the nonparty to make an application for same after the completion of the discovery and inspection.

The costs and expenses involved in the discovery and inspection are to be borne by the movants and the court will make a determination at a later date whether or not they are proper administration expenses.

Accordingly the counterorder submitted by the attorney for the accountant, Millie K. Mason, will be signed after the last ordering paragraph has been deleted and there has been substituted an ordering paragraph to comply with the findings herein.

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

John D. Bennett, J.

An order and two counterorders have been submitted for settlement pursuant to decision of this court dated April 8, 1968.

A controversy exists concerning what expenses are to be allowed to a nonparty pursuant to CPLR 3120 (subd. [b]). The court has been unable to find any case law on the question but has carefully reviewed the 1966 report of the Judicial Conference as well as the commentary of Professor Siegel in the McKinney reports (McKinneys Cons. Laws of N. Y., Book 7B, CPLR 3120). It may well be that attorneys’ fees would be allowed to a nonparty for services rendered during the course of the discovery and inspection but it is questionable whether or not attorneys’ fees would be allowed on the motion. In any event, it would appear that the allowance of fees is in the discretion of the court and because of the relationships of the parties and nonparty (the nonparty herein is the husband of one of the parties), the court will not allow the nonparty [581]*581expenses for Ms attorney. The court will allow, however, any reasonable and proper expenses incurred by the nonparty as the result of the order permitting the discovery and inspection. However, the said nonparty has not submitted an itemization of the reasonable and proper expenses incurred. The court will, therefore, not make such an allowance at this time but will permit the nonparty to make an application for same after the completion of the discovery and inspection.

The costs and expenses involved in the discovery and inspection are to be borne by the movants and the court will make a determination at a later date whether or not they are proper administration expenses.

Accordingly the counterorder submitted by the attorney for the accountant, Millie K. Mason, will be signed after the last ordering paragraph has been deleted and there has been substituted an ordering paragraph to comply with the findings herein.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 Misc. 2d 580, 289 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1968 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-stauderman-nysurct-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack