| Matter of Adelson |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 04046 [84 AD3d 952] |
| May 10, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Marvin Adelson, Deceased. (Proceeding No. 1.) Inthe Matter of Robert Brown, Deceased. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Patricia Layne,Deceased. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of Elaine Hirsch, Deceased. (Proceeding No. 4.) Inthe Matter of Manuel Gomez, Deceased. (Proceeding No. 5.) In the Matter of Robert J. Gee,Deceased. (Proceeding No. 6.) In the Matter of John Brosnan, Deceased. (Proceeding No. 7.) Inthe Matter of Irving Feinman, Deceased. (Proceeding No. 8.) In the Matter of Phyllis Farber,Deceased. (Proceeding No. 9.) In the Matter of Joseph Dimarco, Deceased. (Proceeding No. 10.)In the Matter of Manus Boyle, Deceased. (Proceeding No. 11.) In the Matter of Gary Finkel,Deceased. (Proceeding No. 12.) In the Matter of Shirley Ferdman, Deceased. (Proceeding No.13.) In the Matter of Norma Deheyman, Deceased. (Proceeding No. 14.) In the Matter of AudreyConway, Deceased. (Proceeding No. 15.) In the Matter of Howard K. Green, Deceased.(Proceeding No. 16.) In the Matter of Michael Melnick, Deceased. (Proceeding No. 17.) In theMatter of Rene Eck, Deceased. (Proceeding No. 18.) In the Matter of Mary Doran, Deceased.(Proceeding No. 19.) In the Matter of Alex Cooper, Deceased. (Proceeding No. 20.) Louis R.Rosenthal, Appellant; Attorney General State of New York et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Benjamin N. Gutman and LauraR. Johnson of counsel), respondent pro se.
In 20 estate accounting proceedings, Louis R. Rosenthal, former counsel to the PublicAdministrator of Kings County, appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of theSurrogate's Court, Kings County (Johnson, S.), dated October 21, 2009, as granted thosebranches of the separate motions of the Attorney General of the State of New York which wereto vacate those portions of 20 decrees of the same court which approved and awarded attorney'sfees to him as counsel for the Public Administrator of Kings County in the subject proceedings.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a), a court may vacate a decree upon the grounds of excusabledefault, newly discovered evidence, fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct, lack ofjurisdiction to [*2]render the decree, or reversal of a prior order ordecree upon the which the decree being vacated is based. Additionally, a court may exercise itsinherent powers to "vacate its own [decree] for sufficient reason and in the interests of substantialjustice" (Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 68 [2003]; see Ladd vStevenson, 112 NY 325, 332 [1889]; Alderman v Alderman, 78 AD3d 621 [2010]). Under the uniquefacts of these cases, the Surrogate's Court properly vacated those portions of the decrees in thesubject proceedings which approved and awarded attorney's fees to Louis R. Rosenthal ascounsel for the Public Administrator of Kings County on the ground of misconduct (seeCPLR 5015 [a] [3]). In support of the various motions, the Attorney General demonstratedthat Rosenthal "charged and collected excessive fees, in contravention of SCPA 1108 (2) (c)" inhis capacity as a counsel to the Public Administrator of Kings County (Matter of Rosenthal, 57 AD3d1085, 1085 [2008]). Moreover, to the extent that the Surrogate's Court relied on its inherentauthority to vacate decrees in the interest of substantial justice, rather than its statutory authorityunder CPLR 5015 (a) (3), such reliance was proper, as the statutory grounds are subsumed by thecourt's broader inherent authority (see Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d at68; Ladd v Stevenson, 112 NY at 332; Katz v Marra, 74 AD3d 888, 890 [2010]). Rivera, J.P., Dickerson,Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.