From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Tarka v. Greenfield Stein Senior

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 25, 2002
293 A.D.2d 396 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

859-860

April 25, 2002.

Order, Surrogate's Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered November 28, 2000, which, after a hearing, dismissed petitioner's application to fix the compensation of respondent, and fixed and determined respondent's compensation pursuant to SCPA § 2110 in the amount of $7,060.50, and order, same court and Surrogate, entered February 8, 2001, which denied petitioner's motion for recusal and for an order vacating the prior order, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Melanie Tarka, petitioner-appellant pro se.

Barbara Levitan, for respondent-respondent.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Wallach, Lerner, JJ.


Surrogate's Court properly exercised jurisdiction over this proceeding to fix the fees of respondent law firm for representing petitioner in her capacity as administratrix of the Estate of Wanda S. Tarka. The court's jurisdiction extended to petitioner's allegations of malpractice inasmuch as such claims allegedly arose in connection with the administration of the estate (see, Matter of the Estate of Nicholas A. Piccone, 57 N.Y.2d 278; Rosenman Colin v. Winston, 205 A.D.2d 451). Indeed, Surrogate's Court was manifestly the most appropriate venue for this matter since nearly all of the legal proceedings relevant to the administration of the subject estate took place there (see, id.).

Contrary to petitioner's contention, the Referee and Surrogate followed proper procedure in conducting the hearing upon the petition and in rendering a decision based on the hearing transcript (see, SCPA § 506[a] and [c]).

Recusal was properly denied, and the court's determination that respondent's requested fee was reasonable was amply supported by the record (see, Matter of Pekofsky v. Estate of Cohen, 259 A.D.2d 702;Matter of Phelan, 173 A.D.2d 621).

We have reviewed petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Motion seeking to strike appendix and for other related relief denied.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

In re Tarka v. Greenfield Stein Senior

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 25, 2002
293 A.D.2d 396 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

In re Tarka v. Greenfield Stein Senior

Case Details

Full title:IN RE APPLICATION TO FIX COMPENSATION IN THE ESTATE OF WANDA S. TARKA…

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

Date published: Apr 25, 2002

Citations

293 A.D.2d 396 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
740 N.Y.S.2d 627

Citing Cases

In re Proceeding by Davidson

The Surrogate also has the jurisdiction to determine attorney malpractice issues in a SCPA § 2110 proceeding…