From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Gluck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 25, 2001
279 A.D.2d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

January 25, 2001.

In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2110 to fix an attorney's fee, the appeal, as limited by the appellants' brief, is from so much of an order of the Surrogate's Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated January 12, 2000, as fixed the attorney's fee of Timothy W. Sullivan, P.C., and Timothy W. Sullivan at $3,000, and directed that all moneys paid to the appellants in excess of that amount be refunded to the estate, with interest.

Sullivan Sullivan, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Joseph D. Sullivan of counsel), for appellants.

Forcelli, Curto, Schwartz, Mineo, Carlino Cohn, LLP, Mineola, N Y (Andrew E. Curto of counsel), for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, HOWARD MILLER, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the appellants personally.

The determination of a reasonable attorney's fee in a matter concerning an estate is within the sound discretion of the Surrogate's Court (see, DeCabrera v. Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879, 881). The Surrogate is in the best position to assess the factors essential to fix an attorney's fee, such as the reasonable value of the time, effort, and skill required and actually expended (see, Nicastro v. Park, 186 A.D.2d 805; Lefkowitz v. Van Ess, 166 A.D.2d 556; Shrauger v. Shrauger, 146 A.D.2d 955, 956). This authority rests with the Surrogate regardless of the terms of a retainer agreement (see, Matter of Lanyi, 147 A.D.2d 644) or any agreement between the interested parties consenting to the amount of compensation requested (see, Matter of Von Hofe, 145 A.D.2d 424; see also, Matter of Phelan, 173 A.D.2d 621; Matter of Verplanck, 151 A.D.2d 767). The appellants failed to demonstrate that the compensation awarded by the Surrogate was not reasonable, or that they were entitled to a higher fee. Therefore, the Surrogate's determination was a provident exercise of discretion (see, Matter of Lanyi, supra).

The appellants' remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.


Summaries of

Matter of Gluck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 25, 2001
279 A.D.2d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Matter of Gluck

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF ANNA P. GLUCK, DECEASED. JOHN K. McCAULEY, RESPONDENT…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 25, 2001

Citations

279 A.D.2d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
720 N.Y.S.2d 149

Citing Cases

In re Weinberg

The determination of a reasonable attorney's fee in a matter concerning an estate is within the sound…

In re Wallace

Before: Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Román, JJ. The Surrogate's Court has broad discretion…