Preview:

Matter of Kiminas 2010 NY Slip Op 33063(U) October 7, 2010 Surrogate's Court, Nassau County Docket Number: 315165/N Judge: John B. Riordan Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

[* 1]

SURROGATE'S COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU --------------------------------------------------------------------------x In the Matter of the Account of Proceedings of Eric P. Milgrim, Public Administrator of Nassau County, as Successor Trustee of the Trust for the Benefit of Konstantina Koutoulas, Created Under the Will of LAMBROS KIMINAS, Deceased. --------------------------------------------------------------------------x

File No. 315165/N

Dec. No. 26678

Before the court is the first and final account of the Public Administrator as successor trustee of the trust for the benefit of Konstantina Koutoulas, created under Article Fourth of the Last Will and Testament of Lambros Kiminas, dated October 7, 1998. Letters issued to the Public Administrator on April 18, 2005, and the account covers the period from May 24, 2005 through December 31, 2009. The account of the Public Administrator was filed on June 24, 2010. The account filed by the Public Administrator shows the receipt of $196,086.10 of principal, which was supplemented by income collected totaling $18,509.72. This resulted in total charges of $214,595.82. This amount was reduced by administrative expenses and taxes in the amount of $8,248.09, leaving a balance of $206,347.73 on hand. The Public Administrator seeks approval of the accounting, approval of commissions, the fixing of fees for the services of the attorney and accountant, and authorization to terminate the trust and distribute all principal and accumulated income to the trust beneficiary, in accordance with the terms of the trust instrument, which provides for such termination upon the beneficiary's attainment of age 21. The trust beneficiary reached the age of 21 on February 21, 2010. In addition, the court must release the administrator from the surety bond.

[* 2]

Regarding the fee of the attorney for the estate, the court bears the ultimate responsibility for approving legal fees that are charged to an estate and has the discretion to determine what constitutes reasonable compensation for legal services rendered in the course of an estate (Matter of Stortecky v Mazzone, 85 NY2d 518 [1995]; Matter of Vitole, 215 AD2d 765 [2d Dept 1995]; Matter of Phelan, 173 AD2d 621, 622 [2d Dept 1991]). While there is no hard and fast rule to calculate reasonable compensation to an attorney in every case, the Surrogate is required to exercise his or her authority "with reason, proper discretion and not arbitrarily" (Matter of Brehm, 37 AD2d 95, 97 [4th Dept 1971]; see Matter of Wilhelm, 88 AD2d 6, 11-12 [4th Dept 1982]). In evaluating the cost of legal services, the court may consider a number of factors. These include: the time spent (Matter of Kelly, 187 AD2d 718 [2d Dept 1992]); the complexity of the questions involved ( Matter of Coughlin, 221 AD2d 676 [3d Dept 1995]); the nature of the services provided (Matter of Von Hofe, 145 AD2d 424 [2d Dept 1988]); the amount of litigation required (Matter of Sabatino, 66 AD2d 937 [3d Dept 1978]); the amounts involved and the benefit resulting from the execution of such services (Matter of Shalman, 68 AD2d 940 [3d Dept 1979]); the lawyer's experience and reputation (Matter of Brehm, 37 AD2d 95 [4th Dept 1971]); and the customary fee charged by the Bar for similar services (Matter of Potts, 123 Misc 346 [Sur Ct, Columbia County 1924], affd 213 App Div 59 [4th Dept 1925], affd 241 NY 593 [1925]; Matter of Freeman, 34 NY2d 1 [1974]). In discharging this duty to review fees, the court cannot apply a selected few factors which might be more favorable to one position or another but must strike a balance by considering all of the elements set forth in Matter of Potts (123 Misc 346 [Sur Ct, Columbia County 1924], affd 213 App Div 59 [4th Dept 1925], affd 241 2

[* 3]

NY 593 [1925]), and as re-enunciated in Matter of Freeman (34 NY2d 1 [1974]) (see Matter of Berkman, 93 Misc 2d 423 [Sur Ct, Bronx County 1978]). Also, the legal fee must bear a reasonable relationship to the size of the estate (Matter of Kaufmann, 26 AD2d 818 [1st Dept 1966], affd 23 NY2d 700 [1968]; Martin v Phipps, 21 AD2d 646 [1st Dept 1964], affd 16 NY2d 594 [1965]). A sizeable estate permits adequate compensation, but nothing beyond that (Martin v Phipps, 21 AD2d 646 [1st Dept 1964], affd 16 NY2d 594 [1965]; Matter of Reede, NYLJ, Oct. 28, 1991, at 37, col 2 [Sur Ct, Nassau County]; Matter of Yancey, NYLJ, Feb. 18, 1993, at 28, col 1 [Sur Ct, Westchester County]). Moreover, the size of the estate can operate as a limitation on the fees payable (Matter of McCranor, 176 AD2d 1026 [3d Dept 1991]; Matter of Kaufmann, 26 AD2d 818 [1st Dept 1966], affd 23 NY2d 700 [1968]), without constituting an adverse reflection on the services provided. The burden with respect to establishing the reasonable value of legal services performed rests on the attorney performing those services (Matter of Potts, 123 Misc 346 [Sur Ct, Columbia County 1924], affd 213 App Div 59 [4th Dept 1925], affd 241 NY 593 [1925]; see e.g. Matter of Spatt, 32 NY2d 778 [1973]). The Public Administrator has petitioned the court for approval of the payment of $8,441.67 to the attorney for the Public Administrator in connection with the administration of the estate, of which $1,941.67 has been paid and $6,500.00 remains unpaid. The court has carefully reviewed the affirmation of services and the time records submitted to the court. Contemporaneous records of legal time spent on estate matters are important to the court in determining whether the amount of time spent was reasonable for the various tasks performed (Matter of Von Hofe, 145 AD2d 424 [2d Dept 1988]; Matter of Phelan, 173 AD2d 621 [2d Dept 1991]). The record shows that the attorney devoted more than 47 hours to this matter. The 3

[* 4]

services provided by the attorney included, but were not limited to, preparing and filing the petitions for renunciation of trustee and the appointment of a successor trustee, preparing the petition for the resignation of trustee and the Public Administrator's oath and designation, participating in multiple conferences concerning the settlement of issues stemming from the sale of decedent's taxi medallions, reviewing the proposed stipulation of settlement pertaining to the accounting proceeding brought by the executrix of decedent's estate, participating in multiple telephone conferences regarding the distribution of assets from the estate to the testamentary trusts, attending a court conference, reviewing the amended decree settling the final account of the executrix of the estate and related documents and file materials, arranging for partial distributions, verifying the distributions to the trusts from the prior executrix, and assisting the Public Administrator with the administration of the trust. The affidavit submitted reflects billable time through April 29, 2010 in the total amount of $9,089.42, and the firm expects the total billable fee to amount to $10,589.42 through the termination of the trust. Nevertheless, the attorney has offered to accept as a total fee $8,441.67, of which $1,941.67 has been paid and $6,500.00 remains unpaid. The court commends the attorney for his skillful representation of the Public Administrator and the voluntary reduction of his fee. The fee is approved in the amount requested. The court has also been asked to review the accountant's fees. Typically, an accountant's services are not compensable from estate assets unless there exist unusual circumstances that require the expertise of an accountant (Matter of Meranus, NYLJ, Mar. 31, 1994, at 37, col 2 [Sur Ct, Suffolk County]). The fee for such services is generally held to be included in the fee of the attorney for the fiduciary (Matter of Musil, 254 App Div 765 [2d Dept 1938]). The purpose 4

[* 5]

of this rule is to avoid duplication (Matter of Schoonheim, 158 AD2d 183 [1st Dept 1990]). "Where the legal fees do not include compensation for services rendered by the accountant, there is no duplication and the legal fee is not automatically reduced by the accounting fee" (Matter of Tortora, NYLJ, July 19, 1995, at 26, col 2 [Sur Ct, New York County] [internal citation omitted]; Warren's Heaton on Surrogate's Court Practice

Download 2010_33063.pdf

New York Law