ESTATE OF LINDA LAVONDA RICHBURG JAMES, Deceased (13/626/E) — In this application the petitioner, the decedent’s spouse who is the administrator of the decedent’s estate, timely served and filed a motion to vacate so much of an order entered March 30, 2017 upon a February 16, 2017 decision as, inter alia, permitted the spouse to file a late notice of intent to file a right of election on the condition that his attorney pays the reasonable attorneys fees and disbursements of the decedent’s mother. The motion was brought by an order to show cause which temporarily restrains collection or enforcement of the March 30, 2017 order. The decision and order conditioned the late filing of a right of election on the spouse’s attorney paying the mother’s attorneys $10,710.55, which the court determined to be the reasonable legal fees and disbursements incurred by the mother due to the dilatory conduct of the spouse’s attorney (see Matter of Richburg James, NYLJ, Mar 8, 2017 at 23, col 4 [Sur Ct, Bronx County 2017]). Following that decision and prior to entry of the March 30, 2017 order, the mother’s attorney served and filed two submissions detailing legal services and disbursements, all of which the spouse failed to oppose, and the court fixed the legal fees and disbursements incurred by the mother at $10,710.55. Pursuant to a “so-ordered” written stipulation, the mother’s attorney served and filed a third affirmation of services and opposes the motion, and the spouse filed a reply. The decedent’s daughter takes no position herein.
In support of the motion, the spouse’s attorney reiterates the arguments raised in the underlying right of election proceeding which resulted in the court’s decision (see id.). He avers that the mother’s reasonable legal fees incurred opposing his client’s late application are $3,594.50 for 9.1 hours billed at the stated $395 hourly rate, and disbursements are $14.43, for a total of $3,608.93. The mother replies that the spouse is rehashing the arguments made in the underlying proceeding, all of the legal fees billed were spent exclusively on the mother’s behalf and were necessary to oppose the spouse’s late application.
