Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001

In re the Estate of Gluck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 22, 2001

279 A.D.2d 575; 720 N.Y.S.2d 149; 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 580

Cases that cite this one

20 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Weinberg (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
In re Weinberg (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Ziegler v. McCallion & Associates LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
In re the Estate of Szkambara (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
In re the Estate of Tendler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Matter of Cheryl LaBella Hoppenstein 2005 Trust (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
Matter of Glusing (Monroe Surrogate's Court 2024)
Matter of Glusing (Monroe Surrogate's Court 2024)
Matter of Brody (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Matter of Linder (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Matter of Cincotta (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Matter of Talbot (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Matter of Talbot (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re BNY Mellon (New York Surrogate's Court 2014)
In re Talbot (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
In re Thompson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
In re Estate of Katz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
In re the Estate of Piterniak (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
In re the Estate of Kunicki (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
In re the Estate of Hobert (New York Surrogate's Court 2004)

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 pursuant to SCPA 2110 to fix an attorney’s fee, the appeal, as limited by *576the appellants’ brief, is from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated January 12, 2000, as fixed the attorney’s fee of Timothy W. Sullivan, P. C., and Timothy W. Sullivan at $3,000, and directed that all moneys paid to the appellants in excess of that amount be refunded to the estate, with interest.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the appellants personally.

The determination of a reasonable attorney’s fee in a matter concerning an estate is within the sound discretion of the Surrogate’s Court (see, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881). The Surrogate is in the best position to assess the factors essential to fix an attorney’s fee, such as the reasonable value of the time, effort, and skill required and actually expended (see, Matter of Nicastro v Park, 186 AD2d 805; Lefkowitz v Van Ess, 166 AD2d 556; Shrauger v Shrauger, 146 AD2d 955, 956). This authority rests with the Surrogate regardless of the terms of a retainer agreement (see, Matter of Lanyi, 147 AD2d 644) or any agreement between the interested parties consenting to the amount of compensation requested (see, Matter of Von Hofe, 145 AD2d 424; see also, Matter of Phelan, 173 AD2d 621; Matter of Verplanck, 151 AD2d 767). The appellants failed to demonstrate that the compensation awarded by the Surrogate was not reasonable, or that they were entitled to a higher fee. Therefore, the Surrogate’s determination was a provident exercise of discretion (see, Matter of Lanyi, supra).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.