Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985

In re the State of Levy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 17, 1985

111 A.D.2d 849; 490 N.Y.S.2d 587; 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50104

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

In re the Estate of Askin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
In re the Estate of Askin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Getty Petroleum Corp. v. DeIorio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
In re the Estate of Gajeway (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
In re the Estate of Rappaport (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
Pearl v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
In re the Estate of Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
Rebello v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
In re the Estate of Levy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

— In a proceeding to fix attorney’s fees pursuant to SCPA 2110, Herbert Levy appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Pizzuto, J., on the decree; Bloom, S., on the decision), dated April 24,1984, which fixed the reasonable value of all legal services rendered to coexecutors Ralph Levy and Herbert Levy at $7,000, and allocated that sum as follows: (1) $3,500 to the law firm of petitioner Allen Weiss, (2) $2,500 to Katz, Robinson, Brog & Seymour, P. C., and (3) $1,000 to Herbert Levy.

Decree affirmed, with costs payable personally by the appellant.

*850Appellant Herbert Levy contends that the Surrogate failed to apply the correct rule in making his determination. While there are some well-recognized guidelines in this area (see, Matter of Potts, 213 App Div 59, 62, affd 241 NY 593), “[t]here is no hard and fast rule by which it can be determined what is reasonable compensation for an attorney in any given case” (Matter of Brehm, 37 AD2d 95, 97; see also, Matter of Wilhelm, 88 AD2d 6, 12). The Surrogate’s power to fix such compensation “must be exercised with reason, proper discretion and not arbitrarily” (Matter of Brehm, supra, at p 97). We find no basis in the record for disturbing the exercise of the Surrogate’s discretion.

We have reviewed appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.