In re the Estate of Stuart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Stuart

261 A.D.2d 550, 690 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5458

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

DecidedMay 17, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 550 (In re the Estate of Stuart) 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 Stuart, 261 A.D.2d 550, 690 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5458 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding to settle the account of the estate of the decedent James B. Stuart, Theodore O. Prounis appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Prudenti, S.), dated January 12, 1998, which, inter alia, directed him to return legal fees he received, and the petitioners Helen Hadjiyannakis Bender and Elizabeth Stuart Chandra cross-appeal from stated portions of the same decree.

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed as withdrawn; and it is further,

Ordered that the decree is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the petitioners are awarded one bill of costs payable by the appellant personally.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the New York Constitution grants the Surrogate’s Court jurisdiction over “all actions and proceedings relating to the affairs of decedents, probate of wills [and] administration of estates”, and authorizes the court to exercise such equity jurisdiction as provided by law in fulfilling those responsibilities (NY Const, art VI, § 12 [d], [e]; see also, SCPA 201; see also, Matter of Stortecky v Mazzone, 85 NY2d 518). Here, the evidence demonstrated that the appellant, while acting in a trusted role as the decedent’s attorney and friend, misrepresented to the court that the funds of the estate were intact and that he would immediately turn [551]*551them over to the estate, when, in fact, he had spent much of the money. Accordingly, the Surrogate did not exceed her discretion in finding that he was not entitled to any compensation and directing him to return the legal fees he received (see, Pessoni v Rabkin, 220 AD2d 732; Matter of Winston, 214 AD2d 677).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding to settle the account of the estate of the decedent James B. Stuart, Theodore O. Prounis appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Prudenti, S.), dated January 12, 1998, which, inter alia, directed him to return legal fees he received, and the petitioners Helen Hadjiyannakis Bender and Elizabeth Stuart Chandra cross-appeal from stated portions of the same decree.

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed as withdrawn; and it is further,

Ordered that the decree is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the petitioners are awarded one bill of costs payable by the appellant personally.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the New York Constitution grants the Surrogate’s Court jurisdiction over “all actions and proceedings relating to the affairs of decedents, probate of wills [and] administration of estates”, and authorizes the court to exercise such equity jurisdiction as provided by law in fulfilling those responsibilities (NY Const, art VI, § 12 [d], [e]; see also, SCPA 201; see also, Matter of Stortecky v Mazzone, 85 NY2d 518). Here, the evidence demonstrated that the appellant, while acting in a trusted role as the decedent’s attorney and friend, misrepresented to the court that the funds of the estate were intact and that he would immediately turn [551]*551them over to the estate, when, in fact, he had spent much of the money. Accordingly, the Surrogate did not exceed her discretion in finding that he was not entitled to any compensation and directing him to return the legal fees he received (see, Pessoni v Rabkin, 220 AD2d 732; Matter of Winston, 214 AD2d 677).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 550, 690 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-stuart-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack