Opinion
201 CA 20-00669
03-19-2021
In the MATTER OF the Judicial Settlement of the Final Account of JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A. (Successor By Conversion to JPMorgan Chase Bank, Successor By Merger to the Chase Manhattan Bank, Successor By Merger to the Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., Successor By Merger to Chase Lincoln First Bank, N.A., Successor in Interest to Lincoln First Bank, N.A.), as Trustee of the Trust Under the Last Will and Testament of Lucy Gair Gill, Deceased, for the Benefit of Mary Gill Roby, et al., Petitioner-Respondent. William S. Roby, III, Objectant-Appellant.
WILLIAM S. ROBY, III, OBJECTANT-APPELLANT PRO SE. NIXON PEABODY LLP, ROCHESTER ( ERIC M. FERRANTE OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
WILLIAM S. ROBY, III, OBJECTANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.
NIXON PEABODY LLP, ROCHESTER ( ERIC M. FERRANTE OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the amended decree is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: On a prior appeal, we modified a decree by vacating the award of attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements and remitting the matter to Surrogate's Court for a determination whether those fees, costs and disbursements were reasonable ( Matter of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. [Roby] , 158 A.D.3d 1224, 71 N.Y.S.3d 765 [4th Dept. 2018] ). Objectant now appeals from an amended final decree of the Surrogate that, inter alia, awarded $88,461 in attorneys’ fees for the attorney for petitioner. We affirm. In determining the amount of attorneys’ fees, the Surrogate properly considered " ‘the time spent, the difficulties involved in the matters in which the services were rendered, the nature of the services, the amount involved, the professional standing of the counsel, and the results obtained’ " ( Matter of HSBC Bank USA, N.A. [Campbell] , 150 A.D.3d 1661, 1663, 55 N.Y.S.3d 557 [4th Dept. 2017], quoting Matter of Potts , 213 App. Div. 59, 62, 209 N.Y.S. 655 [4th Dept. 1925], affd 241 N.Y. 593, 150 N.E. 568 [1925] ). Contrary to objectant's contention, the Surrogate did not abuse his discretion in determining that an award of approximately 10% of the gross value of the trust was reasonable under the facts of this case ( cf. Matter of Mahnk , 138 A.D.2d 939, 940, 526 N.Y.S.2d 277 [4th Dept. 1988] ; see generally Matter of Birnbaum , 159 A.D.2d 997, 997, 552 N.Y.S.2d 738 [4th Dept. 1990], appeal dismissed 76 N.Y.2d 783, 559 N.Y.S.2d 979, 559 N.E.2d 673 [1990], lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 709, 563 N.Y.S.2d 61, 564 N.E.2d 671 [1990] ). We have considered objectant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.