Opinion
July 31, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the respondent to the appellants, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing and new determination as to counsel fees and disbursements.
We find that the Supreme Court erred in summarily denying the objections raised in connection with the conservator's request for additional counsel fees and disbursements. The record does not contain a categorical breakdown of the legal services rendered. Thus, it is impossible to ascertain whether or not the fees listed are duplicative, as alleged by the objectants. In addition thereto, factual issues exist, inter alia, as to whether the law firm, of which the conservator is a senior partner, charged fees in connection with its efforts to obtain judicial approval for the demolition of a structure on the conservatee's real property and whether an advance of $2,500, which had been paid to Taff Trucking in furtherance of the demolition project, was refunded to the conservatee's estate after the conservator elected not to proceed with the project.
In view of these disputed questions of fact, summary disposition of the matter was improper (see, Citibank v Northwood Group, 60 A.D.2d 832). Accordingly, we direct that a hearing be conducted so that proof as to the precise nature and extent of the services performed may be submitted (see, Matter of Le Bovici [Sodano — Bartholomew], 135 A.D.2d 635; Matter of Gurland, 22 A.D.2d 696) and an appropriate determination as to reasonable counsel fees and disbursements may be made. Mangano, J.P., Brown, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.