Opinion
2018–06931 File No. 3788/13
03-24-2021
Burton B. Brous, Springfield, New Jersey, objectant-appellant pro se. Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, New York, N.Y. ( David P. Kasakove, Karin J. Barkhorn, and Ashley Reicher of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Burton B. Brous, Springfield, New Jersey, objectant-appellant pro se.
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, New York, N.Y. ( David P. Kasakove, Karin J. Barkhorn, and Ashley Reicher of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, J.P., HECTOR D. LASALLE, BETSY BARROS, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding, inter alia, to judicially settle an account, the objectant Burton B. Brous appeals from an amended interim decree of the Surrogate's Court, Suffolk County (John M. Czygier, S.), dated May 24, 2018. The amended interim decree, upon a decision of the same court dated April 25, 2018, made after a hearing, among other things, denied an objection to the account to the extent that it granted the petitioner's application for an award of legal fees in the sum of $482,072.16.
ORDERED that the amended interim decree is affirmed, with costs.
In June 1998, the now-deceased grantor, Burton B. Brous (hereinafter the grantor), created a revocable trust. From the inception of the trust, nonparty Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP (hereinafter Bryan Cave) provided legal services with respect to the trust. Upon the death of the grantor in 2012, Peter A. Eisenberg became the sole trustee of the trust and he continued to retain Bryan Cave to oversee the trust's administration. Eisenberg filed a petition dated December 14, 2015, to judicially settle the final account and Burton B. Brous, Jr. (hereinafter the appellant), named herein as Burton B. Brous, a residuary beneficiary, filed objections, including to the payment of legal fees to Bryan Cave.
"The Surrogate bears the ultimate responsibility for deciding what constitutes a reasonable attorney's fee" ( Matter of Szkambara, 53 A.D.3d 502, 502, 860 N.Y.S.2d 914 ). Here, it cannot be said that the Surrogate's determination was an improvident exercise of discretion.
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
HINDS–RADIX, J.P., LASALLE, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.