In re the Estate of Verplanck

151 A.D.2d 767, 543 N.Y.S.2d 138, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9186
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 26, 1989
StatusPublished
Cited by43 cases

This text of 151 A.D.2d 767 (In re the Estate of Verplanck) 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 Verplanck, 151 A.D.2d 767, 543 N.Y.S.2d 138, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9186 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

In an accounting proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2110, the petitioner appeals from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Signorelli, S.), dated October 7, 1988, as amended April 5, 1989, as fixed compensation for legal services at $8,000.

Ordered that the decree, as amended, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

It is by now well settled that the Surrogate bears the ultimate responsibility to decide what constitutes reasonable legal compensation (see, Matter of Von Hofe, 145 AD2d 424; Matter of Ury, 108 AD2d 816; Matter of Schaich, 55 AD2d 914). This is so regardless of the existence of a retainer agreement (see, Matter of Lanyi, 147 AD2d 644), or whether all the interested parties have consented to the amount of fees requested (see, Matter of Von Hofe, supra; Matter of Zorek, 131 AD2d 580; Matter of Hertz, 128 AD2d 780).

Moreover, the Surrogate’s exercise of this authority at bar was not improvident. The attorney did not submit a time record contemporaneous with his affidavit of services rendered, and admitted that the amount of hours allegedly spent in rendering legal services to the estate was merely an estimate (see, Matter of Lanyi, 147 AD2d 644, supra; Matter of Schaich, 55 AD2d 914, supra). Additionally, as the Surrogate noted, with the exception of the sale of certain real property, the services rendered to this estate were routine (see, Matter of Ury, 108 AD2d 816, supra). Many of the services rendered [768]*768were executorial in nature and thus may not properly be considered in the setting of legal fees (see, Matter of Von Hofe, 145 AD2d 424, supra; Matter of Hertz, 128 AD2d 780, supra). Thus, the Surrogate’s determination was a proper exercise of his discretion. Brown, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Cressotti (Meehan)
2025 NY Slip Op 33778(U) (New York Surrogate's Court, 2025)
Museum Bldg. Holdings, LLC v. Schreiber
2025 NY Slip Op 50712(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2025)
Matter of Quigley
2019 NY Slip Op 3433 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
MatterofBenware
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
In re the Estate of Benware
121 A.D.3d 1331 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
In re Weinberg
107 A.D.3d 729 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
In re Benjamin
72 A.D.3d 1078 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
In re the Estate of Rose BB.
35 A.D.3d 1044 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
In re the Estate of Jakobson
304 A.D.2d 579 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re Lafferty
297 A.D.2d 469 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re the Estate of Gluck
279 A.D.2d 575 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
In re the Estate of Labua
276 A.D.2d 630 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Estate of Driscoll
273 A.D.2d 381 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Estate of Kouri
271 A.D.2d 446 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Estate of Middagh
267 A.D.2d 593 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Pekofsky v. Estate of Cohen
259 A.D.2d 702 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Estate of Gottschen
256 A.D.2d 519 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Estate of McCann
236 A.D.2d 405 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
In re the Estate of Stern
227 A.D.2d 636 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
In re the Estate of Diamond
219 A.D.2d 717 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
151 A.D.2d 767, 543 N.Y.S.2d 138, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-verplanck-nyappdiv-1989.