Case Name: In the Matter of the Accounting of Haig Costikyan, as a Trustee of Trust under Agreement of Hilda B. Stowe, Respondent. David B. Stowe et al., Appellants; Henry B. Stowe, an Infant by Daniel J. Brick, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent; In the Matter of the Accounting of John A. Keeffe, as a Trustee of Trust under Agreement of Hilda B. Stowe, Respondent. Morris Orenstein et al., Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1973-01-23
Citations: 41 A.D.2d 524
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Accounting of Haig Costikyan, as a Trustee of Trust under Agreement of Hilda B. Stowe, Respondent. David B. Stowe et al., Appellants; Henry B. Stowe, an Infant by Daniel J. Brick, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent. In the Matter of the Accounting of John A. Keeffe, as a Trustee of Trust under Agreement of Hilda B. Stowe, Respondent. Morris Orenstein et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 41
Pages: 524–524

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Accounting of Haig Costikyan, as a Trustee of Trust under Agreement of Hilda B. Stowe, Respondent. David B. Stowe et al., Appellants; Henry B. Stowe, an Infant by Daniel J. Brick, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent. In the Matter of the Accounting of John A. Keeffe, as a Trustee of Trust under Agreement of Hilda B. Stowe, Respondent. Morris Orenstein et al., Appellants.

Opinion:
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on July 11, 1972 and July 13, 1972,1 respectively, in this accounting proceeding, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, insofar as they fixed the fees of the attorneys for the trustees and the guardian ad litem, by reducing said fees to $7,000 for the attorneys and $3,000 for the guardian ad litem in appeal No. [1], and to $3,000 for the attorneys and $1,250 for the guardian ad litem in appeal No. [2], and as so modified, each affirmed, with $60 costs and disbursements payable out of the estate to all parties filing briefs. The size of the estate permits adequate compensation but nothing beyond that. (Matter of Martin, 37 A D 2d 930.) The services of the attorneys in these matters and in the related appeal (Matter of Stowe, 41 A D 2d 523) were to a large extent similar, and based on the time and work involved, we believe that adequate compensation is provided by the fees now allowed. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Lane, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.