RICHARD S. LAWRENCE AND PETER A. VLACHOSE, AS EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF ALICE LAWRENCE, plf v. GRAUBARD MILLER, C. DANIEL CHILL, ELAINE M. REICH, AND STEVEN MALLIS, def

RICHARD S. LAWRENCE AND PETER A. VLACHOSE, AS EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF ALICE LAWRENCE, plf v. GRAUBARD MILLER, C. DANIEL CHILL, ELAINE M. REICH, AND STEVEN MALLIS, def (0175/82) — Presently before the court is a motion by the executors of the estate of Alice Lawrence ("movants") seeking discharge of a bond that movants posted to obtain a stay under CPLR 5519(a)(2)1 pending their appeal from an amended decree dated October 14, 2011 (the "October 2011 decree"). The October 2011 decree awarded the firm of Graubard Miller some $15.8 million for its legal services to movants' decedent in connection with a decades-long litigation involving the estate of Sylvan Lawrence. The magnitude of the award was attributable in part to a contingency element allowed by the court. By the terms of the appeal bond in question, the surety undertook that, "if the[October 2011] decree so appealed from, or any part of it, is affirmed, or the appeal is dismissed, the [executors] shall pay the sum directed to be paid by the decree or the part of it as to which said decree is affirmed."

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

RICHARD S. LAWRENCE AND PETER A. VLACHOSE, AS EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF ALICE LAWRENCE, plf v. GRAUBARD MILLER, C. DANIEL CHILL, ELAINE M. REICH, AND STEVEN MALLIS, def (0175/82) — Presently before the court is a motion by the executors of the estate of Alice Lawrence (“movants”) seeking discharge of a bond that movants posted to obtain a stay under CPLR 5519(a)(2)¹ pending their appeal from an amended decree dated October 14, 2011 (the “October 2011 decree”). The October 2011 decree awarded the firm of Graubard Miller some $15.8 million for its legal services to movants’ decedent in connection with a decades-long litigation involving the estate of Sylvan Lawrence. The magnitude of the award was attributable in part to a contingency element allowed by the court. By the terms of the appeal bond in question, the surety undertook that, “if the[October 2011] decree so appealed from, or any part of it, is affirmed, or the appeal is dismissed, the [executors] shall pay the sum directed to be paid by the decree or the part of it as to which said decree is affirmed.”

As the basis for their request for relief, movants point to two developments following the issuance of the bond. The first was a decision rendered by the Appellate Division, First Department, modifying the October 2011 decree to allow for a fee to Graubard to be calculated upon the considerably more modest basis of an hourly rate. The second was movants’ payment of some $2.9 million to Graubard in total satisfaction of a decree dated July 29, 2013, entered in this court following the remand.

RICHARD S. LAWRENCE AND PETER A. VLACHOSE, AS EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF ALICE LAWRENCE, plf v. GRAUBARD MILLER, C. DANIEL CHILL, ELAINE M. REICH, AND STEVEN MALLIS, def

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal