From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of O'Brien

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 27, 1994
204 A.D.2d 983 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

May 27, 1994

Appeal from the Niagara County Surrogate's Court, Hannigan, S.

Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Balio, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.


Decree modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and matter remitted to Niagara County Surrogate's Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: The record supports the jury's verdict that decedent's will was procured by the undue influence exercised by proponent (see generally, Matter of Walther, 6 N.Y.2d 49; Matter of Anna, 248 N.Y. 421). Therefore, the Surrogate properly denied proponent's motion to set aside the verdict and denied probate of the instrument purporting to be decedent's last will and testament. The Surrogate also properly granted statutory costs and disbursements to contestant (see, SCPA 2301).

The Surrogate lacked authority, however, to award counsel fees in the sum of $60,000 to contestant's attorneys, payable out of proponent's personal assets. "Under the general rule, attorney's fees are incidents of litigation and a prevailing party may not collect them from the loser unless an award is authorized by agreement between the parties, statute or court rule" (Hooper Assocs. v. AGS Computers, 74 N.Y.2d 487, 491; accord, Matter of A.G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v. Lezak, 69 N.Y.2d 1, 5; Birnbaum v Birnbaum, 135 A.D.2d 1116). An award of counsel fees payable by the losing party to the prevailing party in a contested probate proceeding is authorized by SCPA 2302 (2) (b) (ii), which strictly limits the amount of the award (see, Matter of Behrendt, 111 Misc.2d 838, 841). We modify the decree, therefore, by deleting the fifth decretal paragraph, and we remit the matter for calculation of counsel fees in accordance with the formula provided in SCPA 2302 (2) (b) (ii).

The probate proceeding terminated with the decree (see, SCPA 601; Matter of Carroll, 100 A.D.2d 337; 40 N Y Jur 2d, Decedent's Estates, §§ 1304, 1399). The order enjoining proponent from disposing of certain assets "during the pendency of this probate proceeding" expired with the entry of the decree. The appeal from that order, therefore, is moot (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714).

All concur, Green, J.P., not participating.


Summaries of

Matter of O'Brien

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 27, 1994
204 A.D.2d 983 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Matter of O'Brien

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Estate of RICHARD J. O'BRIEN, Deceased. PAULA H…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: May 27, 1994

Citations

204 A.D.2d 983 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
614 N.Y.S.2d 94

Citing Cases

Matter of O'Brien

Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Balio, Callahan and Boehm, JJ. Appeal dismissed without costs as moot. Same…

Matter of Estate of Horton

Because only judgments and orders are appealable ( see, CPLR 5701), no appeal lies from respondents'…