In re the State of Levy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the State of Levy

111 A.D.2d 849, 490 N.Y.S.2d 587, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50104

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

DecidedJune 17, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 111 A.D.2d 849 (In re the State of Levy) 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 State of Levy, 111 A.D.2d 849, 490 N.Y.S.2d 587, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50104 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding to fix attorney’s fees pursuant to SCPA 2110, Herbert Levy appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Pizzuto, J., on the decree; Bloom, S., on the decision), dated April 24,1984, which fixed the reasonable value of all legal services rendered to coexecutors Ralph Levy and Herbert Levy at $7,000, and allocated that sum as follows: (1) $3,500 to the law firm of petitioner Allen Weiss, (2) $2,500 to Katz, Robinson, Brog & Seymour, P. C., and (3) $1,000 to Herbert Levy.

Decree affirmed, with costs payable personally by the appellant.

[850]*850Appellant Herbert Levy contends that the Surrogate failed to apply the correct rule in making his determination. While there are some well-recognized guidelines in this area (see, Matter of Potts, 213 App Div 59, 62, affd 241 NY 593), “[t]here is no hard and fast rule by which it can be determined what is reasonable compensation for an attorney in any given case” (Matter of Brehm, 37 AD2d 95, 97; see also, Matter of Wilhelm, 88 AD2d 6, 12). The Surrogate’s power to fix such compensation “must be exercised with reason, proper discretion and not arbitrarily” (Matter of Brehm, supra, at p 97). We find no basis in the record for disturbing the exercise of the Surrogate’s discretion.

We have reviewed appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding to fix attorney’s fees pursuant to SCPA 2110, Herbert Levy appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Pizzuto, J., on the decree; Bloom, S., on the decision), dated April 24,1984, which fixed the reasonable value of all legal services rendered to coexecutors Ralph Levy and Herbert Levy at $7,000, and allocated that sum as follows: (1) $3,500 to the law firm of petitioner Allen Weiss, (2) $2,500 to Katz, Robinson, Brog & Seymour, P. C., and (3) $1,000 to Herbert Levy.

Decree affirmed, with costs payable personally by the appellant.

[850]*850Appellant Herbert Levy contends that the Surrogate failed to apply the correct rule in making his determination. While there are some well-recognized guidelines in this area (see, Matter of Potts, 213 App Div 59, 62, affd 241 NY 593), “[t]here is no hard and fast rule by which it can be determined what is reasonable compensation for an attorney in any given case” (Matter of Brehm, 37 AD2d 95, 97; see also, Matter of Wilhelm, 88 AD2d 6, 12). The Surrogate’s power to fix such compensation “must be exercised with reason, proper discretion and not arbitrarily” (Matter of Brehm, supra, at p 97). We find no basis in the record for disturbing the exercise of the Surrogate’s discretion.

We have reviewed appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.2d 849, 490 N.Y.S.2d 587, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-state-of-levy-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack