Summary
In Matter of Laflin (111 A.D.2d 924 [2d Dept 1985]), and Matter of Harris (123 Misc.2d 247), both courts, in dealing with an executor's accounting proceeding, refused to dismiss objections raised to the commissions requested by the attorney-fiduciaries on the ground that their appointment was procured by overreaching and constructive fraud.
Summary of this case from Matter of KlenkOpinion
June 24, 1985
Appeal from the Surrogate's Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.).
Order affirmed, with costs.
Objectant's amended objection number 10 alleges that executor Goodstein, as the attorney draftsman of decedent's will, negligently and unethically failed to advise decedent of the statutory provision which permits the payment of full commissions to each of two nominated executors in an estate of this size ( see, SCPA 2307). The appellant Goodstein, who together with his coexecutor, Chemical Bank, has petitioned the Surrogate's Court for a judicial settlement of their account, has failed to demonstrate that any prejudice or surprise would result from the proposed amendment ( see, McCaskey, Davies Assoc. v New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 59 N.Y.2d 755; Krupp v. Aetna Life Cas. Co., 104 A.D.2d 857). Furthermore, the objectant's amended objection number 10 is legally cognizable ( see, Matter of Weinstock, 40 N.Y.2d 1; Matter of Harris, 123 Misc.2d 247). Gibbons, J.P., Thompson, Weinstein and Lawrence, JJ., concur.