Legal Opinion
In re the Estate of Mink
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 12, 2012PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtEgan Jr., J.
*1062We affirm. “[T]he long established view is that a fiduciary voluntarily accepts an appointment with an awareness of the general obligations to be performed, and the direct and indirect costs of performing tasks to fulfill such obligations are covered by the [statutory] commission” (Perez v Rodino, 184 Misc 2d 855, 858 [2000]). Hence, a fiduciary normally should not agree to serve “where the distance between his residence and this jurisdiction is so great that he cannot properly discharge his fidu*1063ciary responsibility without incurring expenses for travel that are in a greater sum than he…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- In re the Estate of CamardaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
- Suarez v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- Biasutto v. BiasuttoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Marquis v. WashingtonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Perez v. RodinoNew York Supreme Court · 2000
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- In Re the Estate of JewettAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Matter of KearneyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
- In re CarboneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- In re CarboneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012