IN RE: the application by Brigitte Abrams (2026)

Before the Court is the petition of administrator Brigitte Abrams to judicially settle the account of the estate of Decedent Ingrid Schoch. The following papers were considered:

1. Petition to judicially settle the account, dated November 13, 2025;

2. Accounting, comprised of schedules A-K, 120 pages, sworn to November 13, 2025;

3. Affirmation of legal services of Stephanie A. Zacharias, Esq., dated November 19, 2025;

4. Amended Petition, dated March 31, 2026;

5. Amended accounting, comprised of schedules A-K, 118 pages, sworn to March 31, 2026;

6. Amended Affirmation of legal services of Stephanie A. Zacharias, Esq., dated April 10, 2026;

7. Affirmation of legal services of Caroline I. Esche Ashford, PhD, JD, dated March 26, 2026;

8. Affirmation of legal services of Melissa Gillespie, Esq., dated April 20, 2026.

Background

Decedent passed away intestate on September 27, 2021, predeceased by her spouse. Decedent had no offspring. On her maternal side, Decedent was survived by six first cousins, one of whom is Petitioner Brigitte Abrams. The five other maternal side first cousins reside in Germany. An estate genealogist researched the existence of family on Decedent's paternal side and found two first cousins, both of whom reside in Germany. Despite having an estate worth over $15 million at the time of her death, Decedent had done no estate planning.

Brigitte Abrams and Richard Vorosmarti, a nephew of Decedent's predeceased husband, filed a petition dated December 29, 2021, requesting appointment as co-administrators of the estate. In a decision and order dated May 7, 2024, this Court granted the petition as to Abrams only, finding that Vorosmarti lacked standing to petition for appointment.

Abrams filed the instant petition and account on November 25, 2025. Amended documents were filed on April 21, 2026. Citations issued on June 1, 2026 for service on the 16 interested parties (seven decedents and nine creditors). Five parties filed waivers and consents. No party appeared or filed objections and the matter was marked jurisdiction complete on July 14, 2026.

The account reflects $17,835,00.50 in charges (assets) and $14,030,484.19 in credits (payments). The administration expenses total $3,496,354.49, some of which require specific approval by this Court. Petitioner seeks approval for payment or reimbursement of herself, Richard Vorosmarti, Carol Vorosmarti, and Francis Lethem for the following amounts:

1. $19,489.25 to Petitioner to reimburse herself for various expenses;

2. $913.92 to Francis Lethem as reimbursement for postage and genealogy expenses;

3. $10,859.18 to Carol Vorosmarti as reimbursement for the funeral expenses;

4. $14,087.51 to Richard Vorosmarti as reimbursement for various expenses;

5. $19,075.00 to Richard Vorosmarti for "estate administration assistance services;" and

6. $383,207.10 in commissions to Petitioner, $200,000.00 of which has already been paid to her without prior Court approval.

Petitioner also requests approval of the following legal fees and accounting fees:

7. $85,203.47, in legal fees to Cane, Boniface & Eisen P.C. for services provided from May 2022 through final settlement of the estate;

8. $19,420.00 in legal fees to Melissa Gillespie, Esq. for tax counsel services provided from November 2022 through January 2024;

9. $27,120.50 in legal fees to Caroline I. Esche, PhD, JD, German estate attorney, for services provided from September 2024 through final settlement of the estate; and

10. $218,753.14 in accounting fees to PKF O'Connor Davies.

Discussion

In a proceeding to judicially settle a decedent's estate, the accounting party has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) the account encompasses all of the assets of the estate; (2) the accounting is accurate and complete; and (3) the fiduciaries have derived no unfair advantage from their fiduciary position (see Vinlis Constr. Co. v Roreck, 30 AD2d 668 [2d Dept 1968], modified by 27 NY2d 687 [1970] [only as to damages]; see Estate of Gentry, 139 Misc 759 [Surr Ct Kings Co 1931]). The accounting party's burden may be satisfied, prima facie, by placing the account into evidence and verifying that it is true, accurate, and complete (see Estate of Pollock, 1998 NYLJ LEXIS 3660, NYLJ, Sep. 17, 1998 at Pg. 30, (col. 3) [Surr Ct Nassau Co 1998]). Finally, and crucially, a fiduciary voluntary accepts an appointment with the awareness of the general obligations to be performed, and with the assurance that the direct and indirect costs of performing tasks to fulfill their obligations will be covered by their statutory commission (see Estate of Mink, 91 AD3d 1061 [3d Dept 2012]).

Requests for Reimbursement and Approval of Disbursements

Petitioner seeks approval of the distributions to the eight distributees, both those already made and those to be paid. These payments do not require Court approval in this decision.

Petitioner seeks reimbursement from estate funds for amounts advanced by herself and others who assisted with the estate. Only reimbursement to Petitioner requires judicial approval, but for clarity, the following are approved as expenses of the estate: $10,859.18 for the funeral expenses (previously reimbursed to Carol Vorosmarti); $2,850.00 for the retainer fee and initial meeting fee with Cane, Boniface & Eisen (previously reimbursed to Richard Vorosmarti); $2,500.00 for the retainer fee to Cane, Boniface & Eisen (previously reimbursed to Petitioner); $336.65 for the subscription to My Heritage Genealogy (previously reimbursed to Frances Lethem in the amount of $210.00 and to Petitioner in the amount of $126.65); $17,148.00 for the initial bond fee (previously reimbursed to Petitioner); and $4,030.60 for maintenance of 41 Orchard Street, Nanuet (previously reimbursed to Richard Vorosmarti).

When an administrator delegates tasks that are their own responsibility, the Court may surcharge the administrator's commissions in the amount of the fees for such tasks (see In re Shen, 157 AD2d 731 [2d Dept 1990] [affirming order of surrogate's court directing executor to pay part of attorney's fees from his statutory commission because "a substantial portion of the services performed by the attorney were executorial in nature"]). Here, Petitioner delegated her responsibility to Richard Vorosmarti for tasks that were hers to perform, including managing Decedent's home in Nanuet and arranging for its sale, collecting information for taxes, contacting financial institutions, and meeting with the funeral home. She agreed to pay him $100 an hour for his work and he documented 190.75 hours. The $19,075.00 is not an estate expense, but a simple delegation of duties for which a fiduciary would be compensated through their commissions. Therefore, this entire amount is a charge against Petitioner's commission. Similarly, Richard Vorosmarti's travel expenses of $2,880.94 are not expense of the estate, but a charge against Petitioner's commission. Finally, none of the $830.87 in postage is an expense of the estate. Therefore, these expenses, which total $22,786.81, shall all be a charge against Petitioner's total commission.

Commissions

Petitioner requests $383,287.10 in commissions. This amount is correctly calculated. But for reasons that are not explained, despite having competent and active legal counsel, Petitioner advanced herself $100,000.00 of her commission on November 21, 2024 and another $100,000.00 on July 28, 2025 without Court approval. This is wholly inappropriate.

No fiduciary may receive advance payment of commissions without court approval (see Estate of Stalbe, 130 Misc 2d 725, 730 [Surr Ct NY Co 1985]; SCPA § 2310, 2311). When a fiduciary pays themselves commissions without such approval, the fiduciary may be surcharged at the statutory rate of interest of 9% from the date of the prepayments to the date of the signing of the decree (see CPLR § 5004; Estate of William A. Cunneen, 2010 NYLJ LEXIS 1352, NYLJ, Jan. 21, 2010 at p.43, col.3 [Surr Ct Suffolk Co] [imposing 9% statutory interest for prepayment of commissions]; Estate of Basch, 2008 NY Misc. LEXIS 4051, 239 NYLJ 124 [Surr Ct Westchester Co] [same]; Estate of Penn, 1999 NYLJ LEXIS 6117, NYLJ, Jan. 13, 1999 at Pg. 1, (col. 3) [Surr Ct Suffolk Co 1999]; Estate of Bosch, 201 Misc 890 [Surr Ct Kings Co 1952]).

Here, the Court elects to calculate the surcharge as of the date that this matter was marked jurisdiction complete so that the penalty did not continue to accrue while Petitioner awaited this decision. As of July 14, 2026, compound interest on the first pre-payment is $15,218.71 and compound interest on the second is $8,640.30, for a total of $23,859.01. This amount, along with the $22,786.81 disallowed as estate expenses, which together total $46,645.82, shall be deducted from the remaining amount of $183,287.10 in commissions owed to Petitioner, bringing the total commissions due to Petitioner down to $136,641.28.

Legal and Accounting Fees

The determination of the reasonableness of attorneys' fees is within the sound discretion of the Surrogate (see Matter of Stortecky v Mazzone, 85 NY2d 518 [1995]). The factors to be taken into account in the fixing of fees, known as the "Potts/Freeman" requirements, include the time expended by the attorney, the size of the estate, the billing practices in the community, the difficulties involved in the matter, the skill required, the attorney's experience, ability and reputation, the responsibilities involved, and the benefit resulting to the estate from the services rendered (see Matter of Freeman, 34 NY2d 1 [1974]; Matter of Potts, 213 AD 59 [4th Dept 1925], aff'd 241 NY 593 [1925]).

Here, the three attorneys request a total of $131,698.97 in legal fees, all but $35,000.00 of which has already been paid. Given the complexity of this matter, which required substantial efforts to locate all distributees, adjudication of the eligibility of a proposed administrator, tax counsel to manage federal and state estate tax issues, and counsel in Germany to handle estate issues for the seven distributees who reside in Germany, the Court finds these fees completely reasonable. The legal fee of Cane, Boniface, & Eisen PC includes an estimate of $30,000.00 for fees to be incurred in the final settlement of the estate. Similarly, Ms. Esche requests approval of approximately $5,000.00 for additional legal fees. Those fees are conditionally approved pending submission of a final affirmations of legal services, supported by the contemporaneously prepared billing records.

The Surrogate has the authority to "determine a reasonable professional fee independent of the terms of a retainer agreement or the consent of interested parties to the requested compensation" (Matter of Elenidis, 120 AD3d 1229 [2d Dept 2014]; see also SCPA § 2309(1) ["the court must allow to [the trustee] his or her reasonable and necessary expenses actually paid by him or her"]; 22 NYCRR 207.40(g) ["The cost of producing and delivering a full accounting to persons interested in the estate shall be deemed a proper disbursement and allowed as an expense of administration."]; Matter of Pavlyak, 139 AD3d 1338 [4th Dept 2016] [finding that Surrogate abused her discretion by disallowing fees paid for accounting services]).

Here, Petitioner seeks approval of $218,753.14 in accounting fees to PKF O'Connor Davies, of which $196,253.14 has already been paid and $22,500.00 is an estimate of the amount necessary to close the account. While these amounts are possibly reasonable, Petitioner failed to include any records for these services. Given the size of the charge, the Court cannot approve these fees without some type of invoice that details the time spent and the per hour charges. Therefore, this request is held in abeyance pending submission of proper documentation. As such, it is

ORDERED that the legal fees of $55,203.47 to Cane, Boniface & Eisen P.C., which have already been paid, are approved; and it further

ORDERED that additional legal fees of up to $30,000.00 to Cane, Boniface & Eisen P.C. are conditionally approved pending submission of a final affirmation of legal services, which shall be submitted within 60 days of the date of this decision; and it further

ORDERED that $19,420.00 in legal fees to Melissa Gillespie, Esq., which have already been paid, are approved; and it is further

ORDERED that $22,120.50 in legal fees to Caroline I. Esche, PhD, JD, which have already been paid, are approved; and it is further

ORDERED that additional legal fees of up to $5,000.00 to Ms. Esche are conditionally approved pending submission of a final affirmation of legal services, which shall be submitted within 60 days of the date of this decision; and it is further

ORDERED that total commissions of $383,287.10 to Petitioner are approved, however, Petitioner is surcharged $23,859.01 for her pre-payment of $200,000.00 to herself, and $22,786.81 are disallowed as estate expenses, which together total $46,645.82, bringing the total commissions still due to Petitioner down to $136,641.28; and it is further

ORDERED that estate expenses of $2,500.00 for the retainer fee, $126.65 for the genealogy subscription, and $17,148.00 for the first bond payment, all of which has already been reimbursed to Petitioner, are approved; and it is further

ORDERED that approval of $218,753.14 in accounting fees to PKF O'Connor Davies is held in abeyance pending submission of detailed invoices, which shall be submitted within 60 days of the date of this decision; and it is further

ORDERED that failure to submit the required additional documentation by December ___, 2026 may result in imposition of a sanction.

Dated: October 21, 2026

New City, NY

HON. KEITH J. CORNELL

Rockland County Surrogate

Keith J. Cornell, S.