In re the Judicial Settlement of the Final Account of Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Judicial Settlement of the Final Account of Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co.

72 A.D.3d 1573, 898 N.Y.S.2d 917

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

DecidedApril 30, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 72 A.D.3d 1573 (In re the Judicial Settlement of the Final Account of Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co.) 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 Judicial Settlement of the Final Account of Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co., 72 A.D.3d 1573, 898 N.Y.S.2d 917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals and cross appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Onondaga County (Peter N. Wells, S.), entered December 17, 2008. The order, among other things, denied that part of respondents’ motion for an award of counsel fees.

It is hereby ordered that said cross appeal is unanimously dismissed and the order is otherwise affirmed without costs.

[1574]*1574Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding as the executor of decedent’s estate seeking approval of its account. Respondents, the beneficiaries of the estate, filed various objections. Following a trial, Surrogate’s Court concluded, inter alia, that petitioner was negligent in its fiduciary duty by failing to discover certain assets of the estate consisting of a block of IBM stock, and the Surrogate imposed a surcharge for petitioner’s failure to marshal the estate assets and sell that stock. Respondents thereafter moved for, inter alia, an award of counsel fees, and.the Surrogate refused to award such fees. Although it is well settled that a Surrogate has the discretion to order a fiduciary to pay counsel fees (see generally Matter of Garvin, 256 NY 518, 521 [1931]; Matter of Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co., 66 AD3d 1377, 1380-1381 [2009]; Matter of Birnbaum v Birnbaum, 157 AD2d 177, 191 [1990]), here, the Surrogate did not abuse his discretion in refusing to award counsel fees based on his conclusion that there was no evidence of bad faith, fraud, self-dealing or theft (see Matter of Saxton, 274 AD2d 110, 121 [2000]). We further conclude, based on the colloquy during oral arguments before the Surrogate, that he was aware that he had the discretion to order petitioner to pay counsel fees. In light of our determination, we dismiss petitioner’s cross appeal as moot. Present — Martoche, J.P., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeals and cross appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Onondaga County (Peter N. Wells, S.), entered December 17, 2008. The order, among other things, denied that part of respondents’ motion for an award of counsel fees.

It is hereby ordered that said cross appeal is unanimously dismissed and the order is otherwise affirmed without costs.

[1574]*1574Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding as the executor of decedent’s estate seeking approval of its account. Respondents, the beneficiaries of the estate, filed various objections. Following a trial, Surrogate’s Court concluded, inter alia, that petitioner was negligent in its fiduciary duty by failing to discover certain assets of the estate consisting of a block of IBM stock, and the Surrogate imposed a surcharge for petitioner’s failure to marshal the estate assets and sell that stock. Respondents thereafter moved for, inter alia, an award of counsel fees, and.the Surrogate refused to award such fees. Although it is well settled that a Surrogate has the discretion to order a fiduciary to pay counsel fees (see generally Matter of Garvin, 256 NY 518, 521 [1931]; Matter of Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co., 66 AD3d 1377, 1380-1381 [2009]; Matter of Birnbaum v Birnbaum, 157 AD2d 177, 191 [1990]), here, the Surrogate did not abuse his discretion in refusing to award counsel fees based on his conclusion that there was no evidence of bad faith, fraud, self-dealing or theft (see Matter of Saxton, 274 AD2d 110, 121 [2000]). We further conclude, based on the colloquy during oral arguments before the Surrogate, that he was aware that he had the discretion to order petitioner to pay counsel fees. In light of our determination, we dismiss petitioner’s cross appeal as moot. Present — Martoche, J.P., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 1573, 898 N.Y.S.2d 917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-judicial-settlement-of-the-final-account-of-manufacturers-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack