558 (Bankr.D.N.J.1996). The administrative expense priority only applies to those claims for costs “that were actually and necessarily incurred in preserving the estate for the benefit of its creditors.” Id. In order for an expense to qualify as “actual” and “necessary,” the claim must benefit the estate as a whole. Id. at 559 (citing Montrose Ctr. v. Northeast Consumer Tech. Store, Inc. (In re Appliance Store, Inc.), 148 B.R. 234, 243 (Bankr.W.D.Pa. 1992)). Further, the claimant seeking an administrative expense award has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor’s estate benefit-ted from the applicant’s services to the extent of the claim allowed. In re Molnar Bros., 200 B.R. at 559. In re Interstate Grocery Distributions Sys., Inc., 267 B.R. at 913 (<HOLDING>). To sustain its burden and thus qualify for
holding a claimant must prove entitlement to benefits by the preponderance of the evidence which is not sustained by mere surmise or conjecture holding that burden is upon employer to demonstrate by preponderance of evidence that claimant committed act in question holding that to establish a claim for abuse of process a claimant must demonstrate  an act in the use of the process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceedings holding that the government must prove the facts used in sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence holding that a claimant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence entitlement to an administrative claim