IN RE: GIL R. (Anonymous) (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81, Gil R., as administrator of the estate of Tamar R., an alleged incapacitated person, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lee A. Mayersohn, J.), dated May 21, 2021.  The order, in effect, denied Tamar R.'s motion, in effect, to vacate so much of an order of the same court dated January 7, 2021, as directed Tamar R. to pay $25,000, plus $493.20 in disbursements, to the petitioner's counsel and $9,800, plus $30 in disbursements, to the court-appointed evaluator for legal services rendered.

ORDERED that the order dated May 21, 2021, is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding by order to show cause and petition pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 for the appointment of a guardian for the personal needs and property management of Tamar R., an alleged incapacitated person (hereinafter the decedent).  Thereafter, the parties reached an agreement to resolve the proceeding by the petitioner's withdrawal of the order to show cause and petition without prejudice and submitted a proposed order to the Supreme Court to effectuate the termination of the proceeding without prejudice.

In an order dated January 7, 2021, the Supreme Court, inter alia, deemed withdrawn the petitioner's order to show cause and petition without prejudice and directed the decedent to pay $25,000, plus $493.20 in disbursements, to the petitioner's counsel and $9,800, plus $30 in disbursements, to the court-appointed evaluator for legal services rendered.

Thereafter, the decedent moved, in effect, to vacate so much of the order dated January 7, 2021, as directed the decedent to pay $25,000, plus $493.20 in disbursements, to the petitioner's counsel and $9,800, plus $30 in disbursements, to the court-appointed evaluator for legal services rendered.  In an order dated May 21, 2021, the Supreme Court, in effect, denied the motion.  The decedent appealed from the order dated May 21, 2021, and the decedent died while the appeal was pending.  By decision and order on motion of this Court dated December 22, 2025, Gil R. (hereinafter the appellant), as administrator of the decedent's estate, was substituted for the decedent.

Generally speaking, the Supreme Court has broad discretion in determining the reasonable amount to award as an attorney's fee in a guardianship proceeding (see Matter of Judi B. [Erin B.A.], 238 AD3d 1142, 1143;  Matter of Yolanda T.M., 137 AD3d 1280, 1282).  However, “[t]he 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 [ward] 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” (Matter of Judi B. [Erin B.A.], 238 AD3d at 1143;  see Matter of Irene A., 214 AD3d 790, 792;  Matter of Christopher A., 180 AD3d 1036, 1038).

Here, contrary to the appellant's contention, the Supreme Court conducted an appropriate analysis of the above-mentioned factors and adequately explained its awards to the petitioner's counsel and to the court-appointed evaluator (see Matter of Judi B. [Erin B.A.], 238 AD3d at 1143;  Matter of Christopher A., 180 AD3d at 1038;  Matter of Lillian A., 56 AD3d 767, 769;  Matter of Catherine K., 22 AD3d 850, 852).

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 21, 2021.  Motion by the petitioner, inter alia, to strike stated portions of the appellant's brief on the ground that they refer to matter dehors the record.  By decision and order on motion of this Court dated December 22, 2025, that branch of the motion was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is

ORDERED that the branch of the petitioner's motion which was to strike stated portions of the appellant's brief is granted to the extent that the portion of the appellant's brief on page 1, which reads “and recommending denial of the petition,” the portion of the appellant's brief on page 15, in the first paragraph, which reads “and that the petition should be denied,” and the portion of the appellant's brief on page 16, in the first paragraph, beginning with the words “Third, the Trial Court” and ending at the end of that paragraph, which concludes with the words “Petitioner be denied,” are stricken and have not been considered in the determination of the appeal.

BARROS, J.P., CHAMBERS, TAYLOR and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.