In re the Estate of Wilkinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Wilkinson

41 A.D.2d 1024, 343 N.Y.S.2d 959, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4387

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

DecidedMay 24, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.2d 1024 (In re the Estate of Wilkinson) 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 Wilkinson, 41 A.D.2d 1024, 343 N.Y.S.2d 959, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4387 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree, insofar as it awards respondent attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,100 for settlement of the claim against Kenneth Jamieson, unanimously reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to Surrogate’s Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Fees awarded to the executor-attorney for legal services rendered by him in settling the claim based on the promissory note held by the estate should be determined on a quantum meruit basis. The record does not include a sufficient description of the services rendered nor is there sufficient evidence as to the value of such services (Matter of Spatt, 32 1ST Y 2d 778). Accordingly a new hearing is required. (Appeal from part of decree of Monroe County Surrogate, settling account.) Present — Del Vecchio, J. P., Marsh, Moule, Simons and Henry, JJ.

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

Decree, insofar as it awards respondent attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,100 for settlement of the claim against Kenneth Jamieson, unanimously reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to Surrogate’s Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Fees awarded to the executor-attorney for legal services rendered by him in settling the claim based on the promissory note held by the estate should be determined on a quantum meruit basis. The record does not include a sufficient description of the services rendered nor is there sufficient evidence as to the value of such services (Matter of Spatt, 32 1ST Y 2d 778). Accordingly a new hearing is required. (Appeal from part of decree of Monroe County Surrogate, settling account.) Present — Del Vecchio, J. P., Marsh, Moule, Simons and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 1024, 343 N.Y.S.2d 959, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-wilkinson-nyappdiv-1973.