Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: ESTATE OF Nicholas MARSH, etc., Deceased. Accounting of Adrienne Marsh Lefkowitz, etc., Application of Shea & Gould, etc., Application of Greene & Zinner, P.C., etc. Adrienne Marsh Lefkowitz, Petitioner-Appellant, Claudia M. Appelbaum, et al., Respondents-Respondents. The Bank of New York, etc., Objectant-Respondent. Schulte, Roth & Zabel, et al., Fee Petitioners-Respondents.
Decree, Surrogate's Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered April 27, 1998, which, on objectant's motion, inter alia, confirmed a referee report in part and rejected it in part, fixed legal fees for the law firm of Greene & Zinner, P.C., in principal amount of $174,000, fixed fees for the firm of Shea and Gould in the principal amount of $76,000, and settled and allowed petitioner's account as preliminary executrix, as adjusted pursuant to certain objections, with related relief, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The challenged awards of attorney fees were proper exercises of the Surrogate's “unquestionably broad discretion” to fix such fees (see, Matter of Estate of Urbach, 252 A.D.2d 318, 322, 683 N.Y.S.2d 631). The services for which the fees were awarded were related to exposing petitioner's misconduct (see, Matter of Birnbaum v. Birnbaum, 157 A.D.2d 177, 191, 555 N.Y.S.2d 982), which has previously been noted by this Court (see, Estate of Marsh, 173 A.D.2d 336, 575 N.Y.S.2d 284, appeal dismissed 78 N.Y.2d 990, 575 N.Y.S.2d 272, 580 N.E.2d 758). We do not agree with petitioner that the proceedings were affected by judicial bias (cf., Schrager v. New York Univ., 227 A.D.2d 189, 642 N.Y.S.2d 243), nor do we find any defect in the referee's services. The bulk of petitioner's arguments on appeal are factual, and we decline to disturb the referee's findings of fact, accepted by the Surrogate, since those findings and the conclusions drawn therefrom rest upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (cf., Estate of Clines, 226 A.D.2d 269, 641 N.Y.S.2d 277, lv. dismissed 88 N.Y.2d 1016, 649 N.Y.S.2d 382, 672 N.E.2d 608). We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 26, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)