In the Matter of Daniels, 2006 NY Slip Op 50553(U) (NY 3/31/2006)

• Decision Date: 31 March 2006
• Docket Number: 94496/2005.
• Citation: 2006 NY Slip Op 50553(U)
• Parties: IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF NEIL DANIELS, Deceased.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 1

2006 NY Slip Op 50553(U)

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF NEIL DANIELS, Deceased.

94496/2005.

Surrogate's Court of the City of New York, Dutchess County.

Decided March 31, 2006.

Vincent L. Teahan, Esq., Guardian Ad Litem, Teahan & Constantino, Esqs., Millbrook, New York.

Bernard F. Mcgovern, Esq., Capell Vishnick, LLP Attorneys for Petitioner, Edna L. Stegman, Lake Success, New York.

William F. Bogle, Jr., Esq., Corbally, Gartland & Rappleyea, Attorneys for Objectant, Joanne Stone, Poughkeepsie, New York.

Eliot Spitzer, Esq., Attorney General of the State of New York, New York, New York.

JAMES D. PAGONES, J.

In this probate proceeding, attorney Vincent L. Teahan was appointed guardian ad litem ("GAL") for unknown distributees. The propounded instrument is dated March 14, 2003.

The GAL has filed a sixteen page report with two exhibits. It contains a thorough, fair, and objective presentation of facts germane to this proceeding. (Riley v. Erie Lackawanna R. Co., 119 Misc 2d 619, 621 [Sup. Ct., Chautauqua Cty. 1983]; Guidelines for Guardians Ad Litem, May, 2003, pg. 22.) For example, the GAL provides important background information concerning the existence and location of distributees, of which there appears to be none; determining the actual status of persons identified in the propounded instrument as the decedent's relatives when they were in fact related to his late wife Dorothy; interviewing the attorney-draftsman of the will and his secretary regarding the events surrounding the will execution, dispositive provisions in wills previously executed by the decedent, facts relating to a guardianship proceeding initiated under Mental Hygiene Law Article 81 of which the decedent was the subject about 18 months after he signed the instrument for probate and observations about facts and circumstances relating to the propounded instrument. The report will also assist the court in ultimately determining the genuineness of the propounded instrument and the validity of its execution. (SCPA §1408; EPTL 3-2.1.)

The issue under consideration is the reasonable compensation to be allowed for the services provided by the GAL. (SCPA §405[1].) He has filed an affirmation of services supported by copies of contemporaneous time records setting forth the nature and extent of his services. (Matter of Burk, 6 AD2d 429 [1st Dept. 1958].) The attorney for the petitioner has urged the court to examine some of the services undertaken by another attorney and a paralegal employed by the guardian ad litem's firm for possible duplication, as well as the type of work they performed. Additionally, the necessity of some of the time spent by the GAL has been cited. The request has merit.

This decision is not about the GAL's integrity, abilities, or diligence, all of which are unquestioned. The court recognizes that there is wisdom in the counsel of many. In the final analysis, however, the substantive legal work must be performed exclusively by the GAL and not delegated to someone else. (Matter of...