IN RE: Eleanor E. GOLIGER (2009)

In a proceeding, in effect, pursuant to SCPA 2205 to compel an estate accounting, Anne F. Pizzo, the attorney for the former executor of the estate, appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate's Court, Nassau County (Riordan, S.), dated February 1, 2007, as, upon a decision of the same court dated June 2, 2006, in effect, fixed the reasonable value of the services she rendered to the executor at the sum of $25,000 and directed that she refund the sum of $144,277.59 to the estate.

ORDERED that the decree is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the nonparty-appellant.

 The Surrogate's Court bears the ultimate responsibility for deciding what constitutes a reasonable attorney's fee, and the evaluation of what constitutes a reasonable attorney's fee is a matter within the sound discretion of the court (see Matter of Katz, 55 A.D.3d 836, 869 N.Y.S.2d 542;  Matter of Szkambara, 53 A.D.3d 502, 860 N.Y.S.2d 914;  Matter of Piterniak, 38 A.D.3d 780, 781, 833 N.Y.S.2d 530).  “In evaluating what constitutes a reasonable attorney's fee, factors to be considered include the time and labor expended, the difficulty of the questions involved and the required skill to handle the problems presented, the attorney's experience, ability, and reputation, the amount involved, the customary fee charged for such services, and the results obtained” (Matter of Szkambara, 53 A.D.3d 502, 503, 860 N.Y.S.2d 914;  see Matter of Freeman, 34 N.Y.2d 1, 9, 355 N.Y.S.2d 336, 311 N.E.2d 480).

 Here, the Surrogate providently exercised his discretion in fixing the reasonable value of the services rendered by the appellant to the former executor of the estate at the sum of $25,000, and in directing the refund of the sum of $144,277.59, in consideration of the hours expended by the appellant, the size of the estate, the issues involved, and results achieved (see Matter of Drossos, 26 A.D.3d 602, 603, 808 N.Y.S.2d 837;  Matter of Tendler, 12 A.D.3d 520, 521, 784 N.Y.S.2d 604;  Matter of Bobeck, 196 A.D.2d 496, 497-498, 600 N.Y.S.2d 758).