IN RE: JUDI B. (Anonymous). (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 for the appointment of a guardian for the personal needs and property management of Judi B., Daniel A. Osborn appeals from (1) a decision of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Marian Rose Tinari, J.), dated October 12, 2022, and (2) an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court, also dated October 12, 2022.  The order and judgment, insofar as appealed from, upon the decision, granted the application of Osborn Law, P.C., and Daniel A. Osborn for an award of attorneys’ fees in the sum of $28,291.54 only to the extent of awarding Daniel A. Osborn the sum of $6,300.

ORDERED that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision (see Schicchi v. J.A. Green Constr.  Corp., 100 A.D.2d 509);  and it is further,

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from;  and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.

In this proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 for the appointment of a guardian for the personal needs and property management of Judi B., counsel who had been privately retained to represent Judi B., that counsel being Osborn Law, P.C., and Daniel A. Osborn, made an application for attorneys’ fees in the sum of $28,291.54.  In an order and judgment dated October 12, 2022, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted the application only to the extent of awarding Osborn the sum of $6,300.  Osborn appeals.

“Generally speaking, the Supreme Court has broad discretion in determining the reasonable amount to award as an attorney's fee in a guardianship proceeding” (Matter of Alice D. [Lupoli], 113 AD3d 609, 613).  The court must provide a clear and concise explanation for its award in a written decision with reference to the following factors:  (1) the time and labor required, the difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill required to handle the problems presented, (2) the attorney's experience, ability, and reputation, (3) the amount involved and the benefit flowing to the client as a result of the attorney's services, (4) the fees awarded in similar cases, (5) the contingency or certainty of compensation, (6) the results obtained, and (7) the responsibility involved (see Matter of Freeman, 34 N.Y.2d 1;  Matter of Alice D. [Lupoli], 113 AD3d at 613–614).  Here, contrary to Osborn's contention, the Supreme Court considered appropriate factors and adequately explained its award of an attorneys’ fee to Osborn (see Matter of Christopher A., 180 AD3d 1036, 1038;  Matter of Lillian A., 56 AD3d 767, 769;  Matter of Catherine K., 22 AD3d 850, 852).

Accordingly, we affirm the order and judgment insofar as appealed from.

DILLON, J.P., WOOTEN, VOUTSINAS and VENTURA, JJ., concur.