Taylor v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Taylor v. Kelly

5 A.D.2d 931, 171 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6470

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

DecidedMarch 27, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.2d 931 (Taylor v. Kelly) 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

Taylor v. Kelly, 5 A.D.2d 931, 171 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6470 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court of Broome

County, which denied a motion to dismiss an amended petition seeking an order fixing the attorney’s fees of appellant. Appellant is an attorney who was retained by the executrix and sole beneficiary in connection with the settlement of a decedent’s estate. Some time after the will was admitted to probate the executrix discharged appellant and retained new attorneys. After some negotiation a sum of money was paid appellant, he turned over the papers in his possession, signed a general release to the executrix, and consented to a substitution of attorneys. The gist of the amended petition is that appellant misrepresented the nature and extent of the services which he had performed, and asks that the Surrogate determine and fix the amount of his fees and disbursements. The record seems clear that jurisdiction of the person was obtained in the manner provided by the Surrogate's Court Act. Section 231-a of that act clearly gives the Surrogate’s Court jurisdiction of the subject matter, with broad powers in connection with the compensation of an attorney, including the right to direct a refund if an excess payment is found. Order affirmed, with $10 costs.

Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon and Gibson, 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 of Broome

County, which denied a motion to dismiss an amended petition seeking an order fixing the attorney’s fees of appellant. Appellant is an attorney who was retained by the executrix and sole beneficiary in connection with the settlement of a decedent’s estate. Some time after the will was admitted to probate the executrix discharged appellant and retained new attorneys. After some negotiation a sum of money was paid appellant, he turned over the papers in his possession, signed a general release to the executrix, and consented to a substitution of attorneys. The gist of the amended petition is that appellant misrepresented the nature and extent of the services which he had performed, and asks that the Surrogate determine and fix the amount of his fees and disbursements. The record seems clear that jurisdiction of the person was obtained in the manner provided by the Surrogate's Court Act. Section 231-a of that act clearly gives the Surrogate’s Court jurisdiction of the subject matter, with broad powers in connection with the compensation of an attorney, including the right to direct a refund if an excess payment is found. Order affirmed, with $10 costs.

Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon and Gibson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.2d 931, 171 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-kelly-nyappdiv-1958.