IN RE: John MORRIS (2008)

In a proceeding to settle the final account of the administrator of the estate of John Morris, a/k/a John F. Morris, Grace Nwachukwu, the guardian ad litem for unknown distributees, appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate's Court, Kings County (Seddio, S.), dated May 7, 2007, as awarded her a fee in the sum of only $415.

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

 A guardian ad litem is entitled to reasonable compensation for services rendered in estate matters, as determined by the Surrogate (SCPA 405[1];  see Matter of McCann, 236 A.D.2d 405, 654 N.Y.S.2d 578).   The value of those services is governed by the factors applicable to the determination of the value of legal services (see Matter of Jakobson, 304 A.D.2d 579, 757 N.Y.S.2d 466;  Matter of Burk, 6 A.D.2d 429, 430, 179 N.Y.S.2d 25).   The relevant factors are the nature and extent of the services, the actual time spent, the necessity therefor, the nature of the issues involved, the professional standing of counsel, and the results achieved (see Matter of Freeman, 34 N.Y.2d 1, 9, 355 N.Y.S.2d 336, 311 N.E.2d 480;  Matter of McCann, 236 A.D.2d 405, 654 N.Y.S.2d 578;  Matter of Slade, 99 A.D.2d 668, 472 N.Y.S.2d 71;  Matter of Potts, 213 App.Div. 59, 209 N.Y.S. 655, affd. 241 N.Y. 593, 150 N.E. 568).   Furthermore, the Surrogate is not obliged to accept at face value an attorney's summary of the hours expended (see Matter of McCann, 236 A.D.2d at 405, 654 N.Y.S.2d 578;  Matter of Bobeck, 196 A.D.2d 496, 498, 600 N.Y.S.2d 758).

 Here, the appellant, an attorney who served as guardian ad litem for unknown distributees, claimed fees that totaled more than 15% of the total receipts of the estate in a case where the estate was small, uncomplicated, and routine (see Matter of Bobeck, 196 A.D.2d at 497-498, 600 N.Y.S.2d 758).   Furthermore, many of the services claimed by the appellant were for nonlegal work and the filing of amendments at the court's request (see Alias v. Olahannan, 15 A.D.3d 424, 425, 789 N.Y.S.2d 726;  Matter of Bobeck, 196 A.D.2d at 497, 600 N.Y.S.2d 758;  Bolsinger v. Bolsinger, 144 A.D.2d 320, 321, 533 N.Y.S.2d 934).   In addition, the size of the net estate operates as a limitation in fixing the full value of the services rendered (see Matter of Kaufmann, 26 A.D.2d 818, 273 N.Y.S.2d 902, affd. 23 N.Y.2d 700, 296 N.Y.S.2d 146, 243 N.E.2d 751;  Matter of McCranor, 176 A.D.2d 1026, 1027, 575 N.Y.S.2d 181;  Matter of Cook, 102 Misc.2d 691, 696, 424 N.Y.S.2d 330).   Accordingly, the Surrogate did not improvidently exercise his discretion in awarding the appellant a fee in the sum of only $415.