14.01.2013 Views

MHL ARTICLE 81 - New York State Unified Court System

MHL ARTICLE 81 - New York State Unified Court System

MHL ARTICLE 81 - New York State Unified Court System

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Matter of Brown, 182 Misc.2d 172; 697 N.Y.S.2d 838 (Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., 1999)<br />

(Kassoff, J.)<br />

<strong>Court</strong> declines award of attorney’s fees from IP's estate for legal fees incurred by conservator to<br />

reconstruct IP's financial records, in connection with proceeding to remove conservator for breach<br />

of fiduciary.<br />

(v) Counsel for Guardian’s surety<br />

nd<br />

In the Matter of Benjamin D. Sherman, 277 A.D.2d 320;715 N.Y.S.2d 746 (2 Dept., 2000)<br />

Counsel fees awarded to counsel for guardian’s surety and counsel for IP’s daughter where, after IP’s<br />

death, daughter petitioned in Supreme <strong>Court</strong> for Special Guardian and final accounting in relation<br />

to guardian’s wrong doing in failing to make nursing home payments for IP and also failing to turn<br />

(vi) Counsel for non - party<br />

nd<br />

Matter of Marion C.W., 83 AD3d 1089; 923 N.Y.S.2d 558 (2 Dept., 2011)<br />

Appellate Division affirms Supreme <strong>Court</strong>’s award of attorney’s fees to non-party trustee of the<br />

AIP’s trust, noting that it is proper for the court in which the trust litigation is conducted to determine<br />

the amount and source of counsel fees in that litigation.<br />

nd<br />

Matter of Ruth Q., 23 A.D.3d 479; 808 N.Y.S.2d 110 (2 Dept., 2005)<br />

<strong>MHL</strong> <strong>81</strong>.16 (f) does not authorize an award of attorneys fees to counsel for a non-party for services<br />

rendered in opposing a petition for the appointment of a guardian.<br />

c. Reasonableness of fee requested<br />

Matter of Martha M. (Anonymous), (Unpublished Decision and Order), June 22, 2012,<br />

Index # 1032/06, Sup. Ct., Dutchess Cty. (Pagones, J.)<br />

In assessing the reasonable value of service rendered by the Petitioner’s attorney, the <strong>Court</strong> declined<br />

to accept the itemized billing records submitted by the firm (wherein the attorneys billed at hourly<br />

rates between $270 and $650 and paralegals billed at hourly rates of $225), noting that the rates<br />

charged therein were substantially higher than the rates charged by attorneys in this geographical area<br />

(where typical hourly rate for an attorney was between $200 and $350, and where the typical hourly<br />

rated for a paralegal rarely exceeded $90).<br />

Matter of Samuel S. (Anonymous), 96 AD3d 954; 947 N.Y.S. 2d 144 (2nd Dept. 2012)<br />

The Appellate Division held that the trial courts failure to hold an adversarial hearing and provide,<br />

in writing, a clear and concise explanation of the factors it considered and its reasoning in arriving<br />

185

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!