Richard H (hereinafter the "Decedent") died a resident of Saratoga County on August 30, 2022. The decedent left a Last Will and Testament dated February 12, 2021 which was admitted to probate on December 22, 2022 upon the Petition of the nominated Executor therein, decedent's brother, Steven H. The Will makes a simple disposition of the assets of the decedent. Article Two of the Will specifically bequeaths "all the monies in my Clifton Park, New York SEFCU checking account ending in 1163 and my SEFCU checking account ending in 3611 to my grandniece [SH]." Article Third of the Will provides for a disposition of the rest, residue and remainder of the decedent's estate to his brother, [Steven H] (the Executor) and nephew, [Paul H] (SH's father).

On January 30, 2024 the Amended Accounting dated January 29, 2024 was filed with this Court for Judicial Settlement. On January 31, 2024, Attorney Calareso was appointed as a Guardian ad Litem to represent the interests of the minor, SH. Attorney Calareso filed her report with exhibits dated March 5, 2024 on March 7, 2024. The report raised significant concerns regarding the Executor's treatment of the specific bequest to SH as well as concerns regarding [*2]disbursements made in advance of the filing of the Account which left the estate without sufficient funds to pay SH's inheritance. On March 7, 2024, counsel for the estate filed an Affirmation in Response to Guardian ad Litem's Report. Upon review of the Account, the Court was unable to discern the allocations set forth therein for receipts of principle and payment of claims and administrative expenses.

Based upon the seriousness of the issues raised in the Guardian's report and to preserve the status quo of any remaining estate assets, on March 8, 2024 this Court on its own motion issued an order amending the Letters pursuant to SCPA §711(2). Such amendment placed a restriction thereon prohibiting the disbursement of additional funds from the estate account prior to the issuance of a final decree. The same Order also directed the Executor to furnish certain bank statements for review and to appear via Microsoft Teams to be examined by the Court pursuant to SCPA §201(3) and Stortecky v. Mazzone, 85 NY2d 518 (1995).

On the citation return date of March 13, 2024, upon the consent of counsel, the Court made inquiry of the Executor and heard arguments of the Executor, counsel for the estate and the Guardian ad Litem. Following the same, the Court made certain findings on the record concerning the issues surrounding the specific bequest to SH and issued a letter Order dated March 13, 2024 directing the return of certain distributed funds back to the estate account. The Court now issues this Decree settling the account.

As an initial matter, the fiduciary has the burden of proving that he has fully accounted for an estate's assets and that the accounting is complete and accurate, see Matter of Schnare, 191 AD2d 859 (3rd Dep't. 1993).

The Surrogate is vested with the authority to inquire into the propriety and accuracy of a fiduciary's account under its general jurisdiction conferred by SCPA §201(3) and the Constitution, see Stortecky v. Mazzone, 85 NY2d 518 (1995). The Constitution grants Surrogate's Court jurisdiction over "all actions and proceedings relating to the affairs of decedents, probate of wills [and] administration of estates" see, NY Const, art VI, § 12(d) and authorizes the court to exercise such equity jurisdiction as provided by law in fulfilling those responsibilities, see, NY Const, art VI, § 12 (e); see also, SCPA §201. As such, the Surrogate is empowered to exercise full and complete general jurisdiction in law and in equity to administer justice in all matters relating to estates and the affairs of decedents. Notably, the statute provides that the ultimate settlement of an account, whether compelled or voluntary, is to be accomplished by the Surrogate and that the court shall "make such order or decree as justice shall require" (SCPA §§2206 [3] and 2211[1]).

Schedule A of the Account shows $103,268.70 worth of principle received. This is comprised of various assets of the decedent, including the sale of a mobile home, a distribution from an estate, sale of a vehicle, collectables and various miscellaneous refunds due to the decedent. All of these items taken together total $73,228.52. Also included under Schedule A are the balances of the SEFCU accounts bequeathed to SH, which when transferred into the estate account on February 1, 2023 totaled $30,040.18. Upon review of the requested bank statements, the Court takes notes the date of death value of these SEFCU accounts to be $29,850.81, a difference of $189.37, this was due to various deposits and withdrawals from the accounts discussed infra. In addition, the sum of $19.07 in dividends paid on the retained balance accrued in between the decedent's date of death and the eventual liquidation of the accounts and should properly be listed under Schedule A-2. As it is the date of death value of an asset that should [*3]properly be listed on Schedule A, the schedule must be amended to show the account value as $29,850.81.

Not shown on Schedule A are the various deposits into one of the decedent's SEFCU bank accounts following his death (some of which were made prior to the granting of letters). These deposits total $589.61 and should properly be detailed in Schedule A.

The various refunds and miscellaneous checks on the Executor's Schedule A in the amounts of $716.65, $124.00 and $64.75 add up to $905.40. There are various deposits shown in the estate bank records of $293.00, $124.00, $64.75 and $423.65. These also add up to $905.40. Although the Executor was unable to explain these discrepancies, the Court will accept that these deposits are some sort of miscellaneous principle attributed to the decedent's estate.

Schedule C lists the administration expenses of the estate charged to principle and totals $9,691.56. Some of these expenses were not clear as to their purpose on the face of the accounting. When asked at inquiry, the Executor testified that the "cell phone service" for $82.58 was a charge beyond the auto-deductions reflected in the decedent's bank accounts and was for the purpose of a final close-out payment of that account. There is a charge for $189.57 listed as "software charges". Based upon the testimony of the Executor, this appears to be charges for on-line genealogy services.

Also not shown on Schedule C are the payments made out of the decedent's bank account following his death for auto-debits of insurance, credit card and telephone expenses. These items total $411.87 and should properly be listed on Schedule C bringing the Schedule C.

Schedule C-1 lists unpaid expenses of $4,076.75 as of the date of the Accounting consisting of legal fees and disbursements of Attorney Hasselbarth. Attorney Hasselbarth sought leave to submit an updated Affirmation of Legal Services and supporting invoices, which such request this Court granted and has considered the same. The total amount now sought for unpaid legal fees by Attorney Hasselbarth up until the date of the citation return is $9,374.98 which is comprised of $8,568.23 in legal time and $806.75 in disbursements. The Guardian ad Litem has also submitted an Affirmation of her legal services in the amount of $1,202.50. Schedule C-1 should be increased to reflect a total of $10,577.48. The Court discusses the award of legal fees infra.

Schedule D consists of three itemizations of creditors' claims paid. These items total $1,546.06 and though not shown in the Account itself, the Executor testified that he paid these claims as well as the expenses he listed in his Schedule C from his own funds. The total amount personally paid by the Executor for administration expenses and claims totals $11,237.62. Also not shown in the accounting was the check for $11,000.00 ^[FN1] written out of the estate account by the Executor to himself on February 6, 2023 for reimbursement of these expenses. This left a claimed balance owed the Executor, to which he testified, between the Schedule C and D expenses of $237.62 which is also not reflected in the account.

In addition the Executor testified that he is owed reimbursement for auto repairs to prepare the decedent's vehicle for sale in the amount of $1,089.36. These items are not listed in Schedule C of the account, rather they are listed as a deduction to the amount received on the sale of the vehicle ($3,500.00) in Schedule A. Although not shown on the Account, the [*4]Executor's testimony and the end balance of the amount of cash on hand in Schedule G shows that he is seeking reimbursement of these expenses. Although Schedule G shows a remaining balance of principal on hand of $22,031.08 as of January 25, 2024, the actual sum remaining in the estate account as of March 8, 2024 was $23,358.06. The difference in the two numbers apparently being the unaccounted vehicle repairs in the amount of $1,089.36 and unreimbursed miscellaneous expenses in the amount of $237.62.

As such, Schedule A should be increased to $104,758.30 and Schedule C increased by to $10,103.43, and Schedule C-1 increased to a total of $11,904.46 unpaid expenses.

Schedule E shows the distributions of principal made by the Executor. It should be noted that according to the submitted bank statements, the estate account received both the combined liquidated funds from the accounts bequeathed to SH and the proceeds of the sale of the decedent's mobile home on the same day, February 1, 2023, in the amounts of $30,040.18 and $51,900.00 respectively. Thereafter, the Executor issued the following checks which cleared the bank on the following dates:

2/6/2023 - Check No. 9191 in the amount of $11,000 to himself for reimbursement.

2/6/2023 - Check No. 9192 in the amount of $4,000 to himself for commissions (this was later re-stated to be for a distribution.

2/14/23 - Check No. 103 in the amount of $25,950.00 as and for a distribution to Paul H.

2/15/2023 — Check No. 9194 in the amount of $25,950.00 to Steven H for a distribution.

12/28/23 — Check No. 105 in the amount of $8,050.00 as and for a distribution to Paul H.

1/4/2024 — Check No. 9196 in the amount of $8,050.00 as and for a distribution to Steven H.^[FN2]

On December 20, 2023 the Executor also distributed the decedents Hot Wheels collection to himself and Paul H at a stated value of $1,000.00 each.

As identified by the Guardian ad Litem, the commissions calculated in Schedule I are incorrect. The Court need not further inquire into the commission calculation as the Executor voluntarily waived his commissions on the record of the proceedings March 13, 2024.

The cash reconciliation and proposed distributions set forth in Schedule J are inaccurate for all of the reasons set forth above. Based on the Court's calculations, there are $230.18 worth of unaccounted for monies of the estate. Without further documentation and information, it is difficult to discern the source of these funds, however, the Court will accept the present value of the estate's bank account as being the sum on hand for distribution.

In addition, as discussed further below, the proposed distribution under Schedule J to SH is wholly inappropriate, contrary to the decedent's Will, and the law of the State of New York. A spreadsheet of the Court's analysis of the account as discussed, supra, is:

The Second Article of decedent's Will provides in pertinent part: " . . . I give all monies that are in my Clifton Park, New York SEFCU checking accounts ending in 1163 and my SEFCU checking account ending in 3611 to my grandniece [SH]. If she predeceases me then in such case this gift shall lapse and shall pass as part of my residuary estate." SH did not predecease the decedent, thus the specific bequest did not lapse into the residuary of the estate which was devised pursuant to the Third Article of the Will to the Executor and Paul H in equal shares.

The date of death value of the SEFCU accounts was $29,850.81. The sum of $19.07 in dividends paid on the retained balance accrued in between the decedent's date of death and the eventual liquidation of the account, leaving SH with a total specific bequest of $29,869.88. Rather than distribute this amount to SH, in his account, the Executor proposes a first and final distribution to SH in the sum of $15,798.58 by splitting such sum into a $10,000.00 payment to her father, Paul H, and the balance of $5,798.58 to an existing UTMA account.^[FN3] The Guardian ad Litem addressed this issue in her report determining at paragraph 39 that SH was entitled to the full value of the accounts and objecting to the proposed distribution. At some juncture prior to [*6]her issuing her report, the Guardian ad Litem and counsel for the estate negotiated this issue, ultimately agreeing that distributing 80% of this amount to the UTMA account for SH's benefit, or $23,879.29, was an acceptable resolution.

The Executor's justification for the original proposed distribution is set forth in a letter he wrote to the Guardian ad Litem and the Court, which is appended to the Guardian ad Litem's report at Exhibit "A" as well as being further articulated in counsel's Affirmation in Response to the Guardian ad Litem's Report. In addition, the Executor himself read a similar statement into the record of the proceedings on the return date.

The crux of the Executor's argument in support of this position is two-fold. He has produced a purported writing of the decedent which appears to be dated February 12, 2021 ^[FN4] and references the use of the monies in his SEFCU account (1163) to pay for the cost of his cremation. The Executor expands on this purported directive of the decedent and self-determined that all of the costs of administration, including funeral expenses, auto repairs, legal fees, mobile home repair fees, postage, filing fees, rent, utilities, cell phone service, executor travel, software charges and the like should be paid out of the specific legacy to the minor child rather than from the residuary share bequeathed to her father, Paul H, and her grandfather, the Executor. The Executor supports this because " . . . [a]s Executor and heir, and as Richard's closest brother for the last 15 years in Clifton Park, I believe that I have a better idea than any other person as to [his] mindset and intent . . . ". Based upon his written submissions and testimony, the Executor appears to use his knowledge of the inner workings of the decedent's mind and his unstated intentions to interpret the Will as requiring the payment of all estate expenses solely from SH's specific bequest, leaving the residuary distribution to himself and his son untouched.

Secondly, the Executor would have the Court apply a new legal theory to justify his own enrichment at the expense of the minor child, that being the Executor's self-created legal theory of "common sense", which the Executor appears to have determined this Court lacks.

The Executor argues that the use of the deceased's bank accounts was necessary to pay his debts timely and to "preserve [decedent's] good name". Even if legally accurate and required by the law, these statements are belied by the fact that the Executor himself advanced the funds to pay the debts and administration expenses. While it is laudable that the Executor advanced his own funds to pay down the debt of the decedent and ensure that the creditors were timely and fully paid, there was no urgency to pay these items from the SEFCU accounts, nor were they used for that purpose. Moreover, there was no need to utilize the specifically bequeathed SEFCU funds to reimburse himself for these payments prior to a distribution. The Executor liquidated the SEFCU accounts and received the monies from the sale of the decedent's mobile home, the very same day, yet almost immediately paid himself distributions and reimbursements, while crediting the same against the portion that was designated as SH's specific bequest rather than the ample funds in the residuary.

The Executor testified as part of his statement that he is a Certified Public Accountant with over thirty (30) years' experience in the financial industry including audit compliance in the private and public sector. With this extensive background, the Executor had to have known that such an allocation would benefit himself and his son, while depriving his grandchild, SH, of her full inheritance. Conveniently, by applying the Executor's rule of "common sense", he and his son are enriched under the accounting to the detriment of the minor child by almost $15,000.00. This is unacceptable.

The Court is appreciative of the work that the Guardian ad Litem has performed on this matter. Indeed, the bringing of this issue to the Court's attention highlights the necessity of Guardians being appointed to protect the rights of minor children and persons under disability to ensure that their assets are protected. Although the Guardian ad Litem has attempted to reach a negotiated settlement with the Executor that she recommended to the Court, in order to "make such order or decree as justice shall require", see, SCPA §§2206 (3) and 2211(1), the Court exercises the authority granted to it pursuant to the Constitution of the State of New York, art VI, § 12 (e) and the SCPA and declines to approve this proposed settlement for several reasons.

First, it has long been the law of the State of New York that the residuary assets of an estate are used first to pay the expenses of administration, not a specific legacy. For example, a beneficiary of a specific bequest bears none of the burden of the legal fees in an estate, that cost belongs to the residuary estate, see, In Re: Estate of Deluca, 2004 NYLJ LEXIS 2477 (2004, Nassau County).

Secondly, even where there are insufficient assets, the order of payment of administration expenses is: "First, the personal estate, and of this (a) the personal estate not bequeathed; (b) the personal estate generally bequeathed; (c) the personal estate specifically bequeathed; and second, the real estate, and of this (a) property which has descended to the heir at law; (b) that which is generally devised, and (c) that which is the subject of a special devise" see In Re: Manley's Estate, 1 Misc 2d 61 (1955) citing Duck v. McGrath, 160 App. Div. 482, 488 (1914), affd. 212 NY 600, and see, Livingston v. Newkirk, 3 Johns. Ch. 312 (1818, Chancery Court of NY); and Matter of Pye, No. 1, 18 App. Div. 306 (2nd Dep't. 1897). This is so even when the specifically bequeathed personalty consists of monies on deposit in bank accounts, see, In Re: Paterski's Estate, 50 Misc 2d 24 (1966).

As such, the Court declines to overturn what has been the law of this State in regard to the distribution of specific legacies for well over two centuries to adopt the Executor's self-enriching theories of the decedent's mindset and intentions prior to his death.

Following arguments on the return date, and the Court's rejection of the settlement on the record of the proceedings, the Court had directed the Executor and Paul H to refund the estate account $8,000.00 each. This was done to ensure that there were sufficient funds in the estate account to ensure that SH's full specific bequest was covered and to pay the balance of counsels' then estimated administration expenses, which primarily consist of legal fees. Such funds were received on March 18, 2024 with proof of deposit having been provided to the Court on March 20, 2024. As such, as of March 18, 2024 the estate account contained $39,358.06 available for distribution.

As to the method of the proposed allocation of SH's inheritance whereby the Executor proposes a distribution of $10,000.00 to SH's father to be held for her benefit and the balance to [*7]a UTMA account, the Court cannot approve this as it is essentially an end-run around the controlling statutes, which the Court is obligated to follow.

SCPA §§2220(1) and EPTL §11-1.1(b)(19) concern the method of distributions to minors when the sum at issue exceeds $10,000.00. EPTL §11-1.1(b)(19) provides that:

"When a legacy, a distributive share, the proceeds of any action brought as prescribed by 5-4.1, or the proceeds of a settlement of an action brought in behalf of an infant for personal injuries are payable to an infant, incompetent, conservatee or person under disability and the sum does not exceed ten thousand dollars, to make payment thereof to the father or mother or to some competent adult person with whom the infant, incompetent, conservatee or person under disability resides or who has some interest in his welfare for the use and benefit of such infant, incompetent, conservatee or person under disability. If the sum payable to a patient in an institution in the state department of mental hygiene is not in excess of the amount which the director of the institution is authorized to receive under section 29.23 of the mental hygiene law, to make payment of such sum to such director for use as provided in that section." (emphasis added).

"Where an infant, incompetent, conservatee, or person under disability is entitled to money or property as beneficiary of an estate or to the proceeds of any action brought as prescribed in EPTL 5-4.1 or to the proceeds of a settlement of a cause of action for personal injuries, the decree or order shall direct that it be paid or delivered to the guardian, committee or conservator of the property of such person upon the filing of sufficient security, except as provided in EPTL 7-4.9 or 11-1.1, unless the money or property payable or deliverable to the infant, incompetent, or conservatee, or person under disability does not exceed in value $10,000, in which case the decree or order may order it to be paid or delivered to a parent of such person or to some competent adult with whom such person resides or who has some interest in such person's welfare, for the use and benefit of such person." (emphasis added).

The argument advanced by Attorney Hasselbarth in his responsive affirmation on this issue is unpersuasive. The statutes are clear, any bequest to be received by an infant that exceeds the sum of $10,000.00, by any amount, even if it is only $1.00, must be paid over in its entirety, to a guardian of the property or paid into court or a bank account subject to further order of the court pursuant to SCPA §2220(3).

In the instant matter, the bequest to SH exceeds the statutory limit by almost $20,000.00. It has long been the law that while a parent, as a natural guardian, generally makes decisions about management of a child's property, if a child inherits a large asset or obtains an asset through a lawsuit, natural guardians do not have the right to manage it, see, Matter of Estate of Mede, 177 Misc 2d 974 (Sur. Ct. Kings County, 1998). In the Matter of Hernandez, 2016 NY Misc. LEXIS 3928 (Sur. Ct. Nassau County), the court disallowed a proposal to split the distribution to an infant whereby $10,000.00 would have been payable to the infant's mother and the balance of $16,766.08 to her guardian citing the above statutes to which the courts are bound.

Moreover, in the instant matter, the proposed funding of $10,000.00 to the parent and the balance to a UTMA account, provides even less independent oversight than the circumstances in Matter of Hernandez, given that SH's UTMA account is held and managed by her father, Paul H [*8]without Court oversight and the $10,000.00 would likewise be unrestricted. The Court's decision in this regard is not to impugn any finding of wrongdoing or ill intent on behalf of Paul H, but, given SH's entitlement to a substantial sum which exceeds the statutory threshold, the Court will uphold the longstanding law of this state that parents cannot manage such funds without court approval and scrutiny. This is done to protect the funds of infants until their adulthood and ability to exercise financial self-determination.

SH will attain the age of eighteen in the next two years and have access to these funds on her eighteenth birthday. Due to the generosity of her great-uncle, she will begin her journey into adulthood with a substantial financial advantage and safety net. It is the Court's hope that SH does not squander that which has been preserved for her today, but instead uses this money cautiously and invests it for her future.

In the proceedings before it, the Surrogate's Court bears the ultimate responsibility of deciding what constitutes reasonable legal compensation, and this determination rests within the sound discretion of the Surrogate's Court, see Matter of Rose BB., 35 AD3d 1044, 1045-1046 (3d Dep't. 2006) [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see also Matter of Massey, 73 AD3d 1179, 1179-1180 (2d Dep't. 2010). This is so regardless of the existence of a retainer agreement or whether the other parties have consented to the amount of fees requested [see Matter of Phelan, 173 AD2d 621, 621 (2d Dep't. 1991); see also Matter of Rose BB., 35 AD3d at 1046; Matter of Cook, 41 AD2d 907, 907 (1st Dep't. 1973), affd 33 NY2d 919 (1973)].

"No hard and fast rule exists by which it can be determined what is reasonable compensation for an attorney in any given case," see, Matter of Stellis, 216 AD2d 473, 474 (2d Dep't. 1995). Relevant factors to consider in determining an appropriate fee award include, among other things, "the time required, the difficulties involved, the nature of the services provided, the amount involved, the professional standing and ability of counsel, and the results obtained," see, Matter of Drossos, 26 AD3d 602, 603 (3d Dep't. 2006); see Matter of Freeman, 34 NY2d 1, 9 (1974); Matter of Potts, 213 App Div 59, 62 (4th Dep't. 1925), affd 241 NY 593 [1925]; see also Pekofsky v Estate of Cohen, 259 AD2d 702, 702-703 (2d Dep't. 1999). The proponent seeking a fee award bears the burden of proving that the services and fees were necessary, fair, and reasonable. Matter of Passuello, 184 AD2d 108, 111 (3d Dep't. 1992).

Mr. Hasselbarth is an admitted attorney in good standing who often practices in the field of trust and estates in Saratoga County and appears in this court. He has voluntarily held his hourly rate at the hourly figure for which he was initially retained, despite his rate increase during the pendency of these proceedings. He has represented the Executor and the estate in good faith and zealously advanced the arguments of his client to the best of his ability. The hourly rate charged for the services rendered is fair and reasonable in comparison to other hourly rates for attorneys of equal experience and skill within the Capital District and more specifically, Saratoga County.

Based upon the foregoing and a review of the invoices submitted, the Court approves the legal fees and disbursements sought by Mr. Hasselbarth in the sum of $9,374.98, to be paid from the residuary shares of the Estate as a necessary expense of its administration. Likewise, the Court approves the prior fees and disbursements of Mr. Hasselbarth for which payment has been rendered.

The Executor argues that the fees of the Guardian ad Litem are properly payable from the funds of SH, the infant.

In regard to the payment of fees of a Guardian ad Litem, SCPA §405 provides:

"1. For services rendered a guardian ad litem shall receive reasonable compensation to be allowed by the court payable from any or all of the following, in such proportion as directed by the court:

(a) the estate,

(b) the interest of the person under disability, or

(c) for good cause shown, any other party.

2. The court may direct that the fixation of the amount of compensation be reserved for future determination.

3. If an infant, incompetent or conservatee appears by his guardian, committee or conservator pursuant to 402 the court may allow the guardian, committee or conservator such sum as the court deems reasonable for his counsel fees and other expenses incurred in protection of the infant's, incompetent's, or conservatee's interest subject to the same requirements in the case of a guardian ad litem of the provisions of the preceding subdivisions of this section.

4. The provisions of this section shall not apply to guardians ad litem appointed by the court pursuant to section four hundred three-a of this chapter."

The Court finds that the services of the Guardian ad Litem prevented serious financial harm to the infant legatee. The Court further finds that The Guardian ad Litem is an admitted attorney in good standing who often practices in the field of trust and estates in Saratoga County. The fees and billing rate charged for her services rendered is fair and reasonable in comparison to other hourly rates for attorneys of equal experience and skill within the Capital District and more specifically, Saratoga County.

The Court further finds that had the Executor properly distributed the funds as required by the Will and the law of the State of New York, and properly set forth such distributions in his accounting, the time expended by the Guardian ad Litem would not have been as significant as it was. As such, the Court approves the legal fees and disbursements sought by the Guardian ad Litem in the sum of $1,202.50, to be paid from the residuary shares of the Estate as a necessary expense of its administration.

NOW, upon the petition praying for a decree judicially settling the final/intermediate account having been presented and filed in this Court and the time to present claims against the estate having expired, and duly executed waivers of the service of citation or receipts and releases having been filed for the following: Paul H in his individual capacity and as legal guardian of SH, an infant, and JulieAnn Calareso having been appointed as Guardian ad Litem to protect her interests and having appeared on her behalf, and Carl W. Hasselbarth, Esq., attorney, having appeared for the petitioner, and there being no other appearances on the return date of the citations; and it appearing that all tax returns required by law have been filed and all New York State estate taxes have been fully paid, provision made therefore, or the estate is exempt from tax; and the Surrogate having examined the account, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the account and the schedules are deemed amended to reflect the determinations set forth in this Decree. The account is hereby deemed settled and resolved for all other issues as set forth herein and that the following is a summary statement of the account stated by the Surrogate as settled herein:

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Executor has voluntarily waived his commissions and the Court accepts such waiver; and it is further

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that SH was specifically bequeathed the date of death amounts contained in the decedent's bank accounts ending in 3611 and 1163 at SEFCU in the combined sum of $29,850.81 plus the sum of $19.07 in dividends paid on the retained balance accrued in between the decedent's date of death and the eventual liquidation of the account, leaving SH with a total specific bequest of $29,869.88, and that she have judgment for the same; and it is further

ORDRED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that JulieAnn Calareso, Esq., as Guardian ad Litem shall ensure that an interest-bearing bank account is opened and properly titled for the benefit of SH pursuant to SCPA §2220(3) to receive the funds to which she is entitled. Such account shall be opened at a financial institution with a location within Saratoga County in the name of SH. The Account shall be titled in the name of "SH". Such account shall be restricted by the financial institution and no funds shall be withdrawn or removed therefrom without an order of this Court or until SH reaches the age of eighteen. There shall be no further deposit into the account without the approval of the Saratoga County Surrogate's Court. Such account shall not be an annuity, or investment account, brokerage account, college (529 account), or checking account, and an ATM or Debit Card shall not be issued. This account shall NOT be a UTMA or a Custodian Account. Proof of the opening of such account shall be furnished to the Court within twenty (20) days of the issuance of this Decree; and it is further

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Executor shall pay the sum of $29,869.88 to "JulieAnn Calareso, Esq. on behalf of SH" and tender such check to her at her office address located at: Gleason, Dunn, Walsh & O'Shea, attn: JulieAnn Calareso, Esq., 300 Great Oaks Boulevard, Suite 321, Albany, New York 12203 within ten (10) days of the filing of this Decree; and it is further

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that JulieAnn Calareso as Guardian ad Litem is hereby directed to receive and deposit the funds of SH under the terms of this Decree; and to deposit them into the account directed to be opened hereunder. Attorney Calareso is not required to obtain the counter-signature of the Clerk of the Court for such deposit, but proof of deposit shall be filed with the Court within twenty (20) days of the deposit of the same; and it is further

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Attorney Hasselbarth is awarded the sum of $10,767.50 in legal fees for services performed, plus the sum of $1,107.48 for disbursements, of which $2,500.00 has been paid leaving the sum due and owing of $9,374.98 which he shall have Judgment for and which such sum shall be paid by the Executor within ten (10) days of the filing of this Decree; and it is further

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Attorney Calareso is awarded and shall have Judgment for the sum of $1,202.50 in legal fees for her services as Guardian ad Litem which such sum shall be paid by the Executor within ten (10) days of the filing of this Decree; and it is further

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Attorney Calareso has leave to submit a further application for fees to be paid from the funds of SH for her continued services in settling the matters set forth in this Decree; and it is further

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that as the estate is presently illiquid, the amounts as adjusted which are due the Executor from Paul H as residuary legatee pursuant to his previously executed Receipt, Release and Refunding Agreement are hereby established as:

Pursuant to SCPA §2215(3), Paul H shall refund the amount of $1,208.14 to the Executor within thirty (30) days of the filing of this Decree; and it is further

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that upon complying with the foregoing provisions of this decree, Steven H as the Executor of the Estate of Richard H, deceased, be and he hereby is, discharged from all responsibility and accountability and from all liability to any person interested thereunder for and in respect of any and all matters embraced in the accounting and it is further

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, that any party herein and the Guardian ad Litem shall be entitled to seek relief at the foot of this Order, Decree, and Judgment for specific performance and/or such additional remedies as may be available and/or necessary to enforce any provision of this Order, Decree, and Judgment.

This constitutes the final Decree of this Court.