MHL ARTICLE 81 - New York State Unified Court System

higher fee award. (It is noteworth that the Appellate Division modified the fee and did not remand
it back to the trial court to reestablish the fee.)
Matter of Jewish Association for Services for the Aged Community Guardian Program v
David Kramer, 60 A.D.3d 531; 874 N.Y.S.2d 375 (1st Dept 2009)
Order directing reimbursement of temporary guardianship expenses and legal fees incurred in
connection with an interim stay of the guardianship powers obtained by respondent’s counsel
unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the matter remanded for re-evaluation of the
legal fees to be imposed, if any. The Appellate Division determined that attorney fees had been
improvidently imposed without the requisite written decision setting forth the basis for the award
and an explanation as to the reasonableness of the fees imposed further, directed that an evaluation
de novo as to whether the legal fees sought were occasioned by procedural mistakes possibly
committed by respondent's counsel.
Matter of J.S.W., 15 Misc.3d 1118A; 839 N.Y.S.2d 437 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Cty. 2007)(Hunter,
J.)
Where the co-guardians were themselves attorneys, it was unreasonable of them to have their
attorney prepare the final accounting and move to terminate the guardianship.
Matter of Audrey J.S., 34 A.D.3d 820; 825 N.Y.S.2d 520 (2nd Dept. 2006)
Appellate Division held an appeal of an attorney fee award in abeyance and remitted it back to
Supreme Court, Queens County to set forth a clear and concise explanation of the factors considered
in awarding the fees and the reasons for its determination. The Appellate Division reiterated the
factors to be considered in awarding the attorneys fees as: (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 Astor, 14 Misc.3d 1201; 831 N.Y.S.2d 360 (Sup. Ct., NY Cty. 2006) (Stackhouse, J.)
Over 3 million dollars in legal and expert fees were amassed by 56 lawyers, 65 paralegals, 6
accountants, 5 bankers, 6 doctors, a law school professor and 2 pubic relations firms during the
proceedings in the intensely disputed guardianship of NY philanthropist Brooke Astor. Although
there was no opposition filed by any party to any of the fee requests submitted, the court, relying on
its inherent authority, reviewed the submissions. The court, in approving a substantial amount of
the requests, noted that Mrs. Astor's financial holdings are extremely complex, that her financial
records were poorly maintained thus complicating the task of marshaling and taking control of her
assets and income; that the case necessitated investigation into allegations that her son/guardian had
converted her assets into his own use; that there were motions by three press organizations for leave
to intervene and for access to the files and proceedings; that because the proceeding settled only 6
187