Opinion · Nylaw New York

MATTER OF HALLEWELL, 266 App. Div. 723 (1943)

In the Matter of MAE HALLEWELL, as Ex’[r, x] of FRANK A. VAUPEL, Deceased,Respondent.RICHARD J. MACKEY et al., Copartners Practicing L. under the Name of MACKEY HERRLICH, Appellants., 266 A.D. 723 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department. 1943)

Type: Opinion
Court: Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction: Nylaw
Date: 1943-04-22
Topic: general

MATTER OF HALLEWELL, 266 App. Div. 723 (1943) In the Matter of MAE HALLEWELL, as Executrix of FRANK A. VAUPEL, Deceased,Respondent.RICHARD J. MACKEY et al., Copartners Practicing Law under the Name of MACKEY HERRLICH, Appellants.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department. April 22, 1943.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed MATTER OF HALLEWELL, 266 App. Div. 723 (1943). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

MATTER OF HALLEWELL,266 App. Div. 723(1943)

In the Matter of MAE HALLEWELL, as Executrix of FRANK A. VAUPEL, Deceased,

Respondent.

RICHARD J. MACKEY et al., Copartners Practicing Law under the Name of MACKEY

HERRLICH, Appellants.

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

April 22, 1943.

Appeal from Bronx County Surrogate's Court.

Per Curiam.

The fixation of the amount for services was made at a time after the rendition of the services, when the relation of attorney and client had existed for a long period of time and was still in force. In this State it has been held that as to the contracts made under such circumstances, which are beneficial to the attorney, it is incumbent upon the latter to show that the provisions are fair and reasonable and were known and understood by the client. (Matter of Howell,215 N.Y. 466,472.) At least no undue advantage can be taken of the relationship. (Rodkinsonv.Haecker,248 N.Y. 480.)

Without intending to indicate approval of all of the statements of the Surrogate concerning the conduct of the respondents, we affirm the decree appealed from, with costs, for the reason that we find that jurisdiction existed under section 231-a of the Surrogate's Court Act (Matter of Campbell,289 N.Y. 509) and there was a sufficient basis in the evidence for the relief granted.

Present — Martin, P.J., Untermyer, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Decree unanimously affirmed, with costs.