In re the Est. of Gluck, 279 A.D.2d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · Go Syfert
In re the Est. of Gluck, 279 A.D.2d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
28 citation events (28 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Cheryl LaBella Hoppenstein 2005 Trust (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
Here, the court properly considered the relevant factors, and the objectants failed to demonstrate that the legal fees awarded were not reasonable ( see Matter of Brody , 202 AD3d at 783; Matter of Gluck , 279 AD2d 575, 576).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Glusing
N.Y. Surr. Ct., Monroe Cty. · 2024 · confidence medium
Missing as well is a statement required by subdivision (d)(5), the name of the "person with whom such (retainer) agreement was made and the terms thereof." Additionally, in Surrogate's Court, in the context of an application to compromise an action involving wrongful death and/or pain and suffering, and again in consideration of its historical mandate to protect "widows and orphans," "[t]he court bears the ultimate responsibility for fixing and determining the compensation of an attorney for services rendered to a fiduciary ( see SCPA 2110; In re Estate of Gluck , 279 AD2d 575, 576 [2d Dept 20…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Glusing
N.Y. Surr. Ct., Monroe Cty. · 2024 · confidence medium
Missing as well is a statement required by subdivision (d)(5), the name of the "person with whom such (retainer) agreement was made and the terms thereof." Additionally, in Surrogate's Court, in the context of an application to compromise an action involving wrongful death and/or pain and suffering, and again in consideration of its historical mandate to protect "widows and orphans," "[t]he court bears the ultimate responsibility for fixing and determining the compensation of an attorney for services rendered to a fiduciary ( see SCPA 2110; In re Estate of Gluck , 279 AD2d 575, 576 [2d Dept 20…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Linder
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
“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” (Matter of Gluck, 279 AD2d 575, 576 [2001]; see Matter of Talbot, 122 AD3d 867, 868 [2014]; Matter of Thompson, 66 AD3d 1035, 1036 [2009]; Matter of Piterniak, 38 AD3d at 781 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Talbot
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
The burden of proving that an attorney retainer agreement was reasonable rests with the attorney (see Matter of Talbot, 84 AD3d 967 [2011]; Matter of Thompson, 66 AD3d 1035, 1036 [2009]; Matter of Gluck, 279 AD2d 575, 576 [2001]; Matter of Lanyi, 147 AD2d 644, 647 [1989]; Matter of Krulish, 130 AD2d 959 [1987]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Talbot
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
“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” (Matter of Gluck, 279 AD2d 575, 576 [2001]; see Matter of Thompson, 66 AD3d 1035, 1036 [2009]; Matter of Piterniak, 38 AD3d at 781 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Weinberg
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
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 [1987]; Matter of Gluck, 279 AD2d 575, 576 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Weinberg
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
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 [1987]; Matter of Gluck, 279 AD2d 575, 576 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Talbot
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2110 to fix and determine an attorney’s fee, the Surrogate bears the ultimate responsibility of deciding what constitutes a reasonable legal fee, regardless of the existence of a retainer agreement or whether all of the interested parties have consented to the amount of fees requested (see Matter of Piterniak, 38 AD3d at 781 ; Matter of Szkambara, 53 AD3d at 502 ; Nicastro v Park, 186 AD2d at 805 ; Matter of Gluck, 279 AD2d 575, 576 [2001]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re Thompson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
“This authority rests with the Surrogate regardless of the terms of a retainer agreement” (Matter of Gluck, 279 AD2d 575, 576 [2001]; see Matter of Lanyi, 147 AD2d 644, 646-647 [1989]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Estate of Katz
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
The Surrogate’s Court bears the ultimate responsibility for deciding what constitutes a reasonable attorney’s fee, and the evaluation of what constitutes a reasonable attorney’s fee is a matter within the sound discretion of the court (see Matter of Szkambara, 53 AD3d 502 [2008]; Matter of Gluck, 279 AD2d 575, 576 [2001]; Matter of Nicastro, 186 AD2d 805 [1992]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re the Estate of Szkambara
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
The determination of what constitutes a reasonable attorney’s fee is a matter within the sound discretion of the court (see Matter of Gluck, 279 AD2d 575, 576 [2001]; Matter of Pekofsky v Estate of Cohen, 259 AD2d 702 [1999]; Matter of Nicastro, 186 AD2d 805 [1992]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re the Estate of Hobert
N.Y. Sur. Ct. · 2004 · confidence medium
This discretion rests with the court regardless of the terms of a retainer agreement or any agreement between the interested parties consenting to the amount of compensation requested (see Matter of Gluck, 279 AD2d 575, 576 [2001] [and the cases cited therein]).
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Brody
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
"The Surrogate is in the best position to assess the factors essential to fix an attorney's fee" ( Matter of Linder , 153 AD3d at 1345 [internal quotation marks omitted]), "such as time and labor, difficulty of the questions involved, the amount involved, counsel's experience, ability, and reputation, and the customary fee charged for such services" ( Matter of Cincotta , 139 AD3d at 1059 ; see Matter of Gluck , 279 AD2d 575, 576 ).
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Cincotta
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
“This authority rests with the Surrogate regardless of the terms of a retainer agreement” (Matter of Thompson, 66 AD3d at 1036 ; see Matter of Gluck, 279 AD2d 575, 576 [2001]; Matter of Lanyi, 147 AD2d 644, 646-647 [1989]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of the Estate of Anna P. Gluck, John K. McCauley, Respondent Timothy W. Sullivan, P. C.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 22, 2001.
279 A.D.2d 575
Cited by 21 opinions  |  Published

In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2110 to fix an attorney’s fee, the appeal, as limited by[*576] the 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.