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: the ESTATE OF Anna P. GLUCK, Deceased. John K. McCauley, Respondent; Timothy W. Sullivan, P.C., et al., Appellants.
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.
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, 524 N.Y.S.2d 176, 518 N.E.2d 1168). 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, 589 N.Y.S.2d 94; Lefkowitz v. Van Ess, 166 A.D.2d 556, 560 N.Y.S.2d 838; Shrauger v. Shrauger, 146 A.D.2d 955, 956, 537 N.Y.S.2d 84). This authority rests with the Surrogate regardless of the terms of a retainer agreement (see, Matter of Lanyi, 147 A.D.2d 644, 538 N.Y.S.2d 183) or any agreement between the interested parties consenting to the amount of compensation requested (see, Matter of Von Hofe, 145 A.D.2d 424, 535 N.Y.S.2d 391; see also, Matter of Phelan, 173 A.D.2d 621, 570 N.Y.S.2d 202; Matter of Verplanck, 151 A.D.2d 767, 543 N.Y.S.2d 138). 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.
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: January 22, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)