Majority
Supreme Court has broad discretion in determining the reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees to be awarded in a guardianship proceeding and, absent the abuse of that discretion, the court’s determination will be upheld (see Matter of Tijuana M., 303 AD2d 681 [2003]; Matter of Mavis L., 285 AD2d 509 [2001]). Supreme Court must ascertain whether the fee requested is necessary, fair and reasonable (see Matter of Linda R., 304 AD2d 832 [2003]; Matter of Castano, 248 AD2d 382 [1998]) and, in order to permit a proper appellate review, it must “ ‘provide a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the fee award,’ ” or the lack thereof (Ricciuti v Lombardi, 256 AD2d 892 , 893 [1998], quoting Hensley v Eckerhart, 461 US 424 , 437 [1983]).
Supreme Court herein failed to delineate the grounds which formed the basis of its decision and, as a result, we remand the matter to Supreme Court for a statement of its reasons for the denial of the application for attorneys’ fees. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Sullivan and Lerner, JJ.
Cases cited
- In re Christine Pauling 303 AD2d 681 p. 308
- Ricciuti v. Lombardi 256 AD2d 892 at 893 p. 308
- Hensley v. Eckerhart 461 US 424 at 437 p. 308