MATTER OF URY

Decree affirmed, insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Although the Surrogate's Court decision does not reveal on what basis the court computed the $13,000 award of counsel fees, the record is sufficient for this court to determine whether such sum was reasonable see, Kyle v Kyle, 94 A.D.2d 866, 866-867, lv denied 60 N.Y.2d 557; Matter of Bernheimer, 61 A.D.2d 761, 762, lv denied 45 N.Y.2d 710; Jordan v Freeman, 40 A.D.2d 656, 656-657).

In determining the reasonable value of an attorney's services, the following factors should be considered: "the difficulty of the questions involved; the skill required to handle the problem; the time and labor required; the lawyer's experience, ability and reputation; the customary fee charged by the Bar for similar services; and the amount involved" (Matter of Schaich, 55 A.D.2d 914, lv denied 42 N.Y.2d 802; see, Matter of Freeman, 40 A.D.2d 397, affd 34 N.Y.2d 1, 9; Matter of Potts, 213 App Div 59, 62, affd 241 N.Y. 593).

The instant record does not include a categorical breakdown of the services with a corresponding fee, but merely evidence of services rendered by Sidney Holtzman, none of which involved particularly exceptional or difficult problems, and conclusory statements that such services were worth $30,000. "The cutting of the [claimed] fee was a proper exercise of discretion and well within the mandate of SCPA 2110, which decrees that it is ultimately the court's responsibility to decide what constitutes reasonable compensation (see Matter of Brehm, 37 A.D.2d 95)" (Matter of Schaich, supra; see, Matter of Freeman, supra, p 398).

We have considered the other contentions raised upon the appeal and cross appeal and find them to be without merit.