In re the Probate of the Will of Brewer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Probate of the Will of Brewer

277 A.D.2d 1008

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

DecidedOctober 30, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 1008 (In re the Probate of the Will of Brewer) 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 Probate of the Will of Brewer, 277 A.D.2d 1008 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County, which modified and, as modified, confirmed the report of a referee and allowed respondent, an attorney, the sum of $3,500 for services rendered in an unsuccessful offering for probate of an instrument, prepared by petitioner-respondent for the decedent, in which he was named one of the executors. Order modified on the law and the facts by reducing the amount allowed petitioner-respondent to $2,000, and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to parties filing briefs, payable out of the estate. In our opinion the record supports the finding below that petitioner-respondent acted in good faith in offering the instrument for probate; and an allowance to the unsuccessful proponent may therefore be made, in the Surrogate’s discretion, under section 278 of the Surrogate’s Court Act. (Cf. Matter of Staiger, 249 N. Y. 229, 234.) Under all the circumstances disclosed, however, the sum awarded was excessive. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Sneed, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County, which modified and, as modified, confirmed the report of a referee and allowed respondent, an attorney, the sum of $3,500 for services rendered in an unsuccessful offering for probate of an instrument, prepared by petitioner-respondent for the decedent, in which he was named one of the executors. Order modified on the law and the facts by reducing the amount allowed petitioner-respondent to $2,000, and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to parties filing briefs, payable out of the estate. In our opinion the record supports the finding below that petitioner-respondent acted in good faith in offering the instrument for probate; and an allowance to the unsuccessful proponent may therefore be made, in the Surrogate’s discretion, under section 278 of the Surrogate’s Court Act. (Cf. Matter of Staiger, 249 N. Y. 229, 234.) Under all the circumstances disclosed, however, the sum awarded was excessive. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Sneed, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 1008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-probate-of-the-will-of-brewer-nyappdiv-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack