ESTATE OF BURTON B. BROUS REVOCABLE TRUST

ESTATE OF BURTON B. BROUS REVOCABLE TRUST, (13/3788/D) By decision/order dated May 15, 2017, this court granted, in part, and denied, in part, petitioner's motion for summary judgment by dismissing five of six objections filed to captioned accounting, preserving Objection #2 for determination upon a hearing before the court on the relevant attorney's fees and the allocation thereof. Objectant now moves for an order granting reargument and renewal of the court's prior decision/order insofar as it dismissed Objection #1 (legal fees paid to Bryan Cave, LLP on or before April 30, 2014), Objection #3 (amounts paid to Susan Brous) and Objection #6 (improper offset against distribution(s) to objectant). Upon the papers submitted, the motion to renew/and or reargue is denied; and the terms of the court's May 15, 2017 decision/order are adhered to.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

ESTATE OF BURTON B. BROUS REVOCABLE TRUST, (13/3788/D) By decision/order dated May 15, 2017, this court granted, in part, and denied, in part, petitioner’s motion for summary judgment by dismissing five of six objections filed to captioned accounting, preserving Objection #2 for determination upon a hearing before the court on the relevant attorney’s fees and the allocation thereof. Objectant now moves for an order granting reargument and renewal of the court’s prior decision/order insofar as it dismissed Objection #1 (legal fees paid to Bryan Cave, LLP on or before April 30, 2014), Objection #3 (amounts paid to Susan Brous) and Objection #6 (improper offset against distribution(s) to objectant). Upon the papers submitted, the motion to renew/and or reargue is denied; and the terms of the court’s May 15, 2017 decision/order are adhered to.

Objectant appears to be arguing that this court failed to consider all of the elements and arguments propounded by objectant with respect to legal fees paid in its initial determination; or how the share due Susan Brous and the adjustment of Burton “Buzzy” Brous’ share were improperly calculated. Counsel also asserts that an attached supplemental affidavit from objectant (“Buzzy”) with exhibits constitute new facts supporting his position concerning petitioner’s legal fees. He concludes by asserting that the court “arbitrarily and prematurely” granted summary judgment on the issue of legal fees (Bates Affirmation, p.12, ¶67).

ESTATE OF BURTON B. BROUS REVOCABLE TRUST

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal