The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-07-15
LAWYERS WARNED IN
RECEIVERSHIP RUSH
Judges Denounce opportunities
for Court Appointments
as a Nuisance.
MAIL OF EACH Is CLOGGED
Conduct Of Louis Ross Is De.
nOunced by Justice Green
baum as a Typical Case.

""'' "' " y p''"' 'uN''
The recent decision by Supreme Cont
Justice Greenbaum In which he asserted
that certain receivers in foreclosure pro.
ceedings had regarded their office a. A
means OF enriching themselves and Their
elatives. brings TO light through an in.
estigation by THE SUN the fact that
many attorneys, some of them OF high
standing at the bar, are 80 eager to be an.
pointed receivers, referees and commits
sioners in court proceedings that the mail
OF the Justices Is flooded with appeals
from these attorneys to be remembered
when appointments are handed out.
The situation has become so serious, 80
far as the Justices are concerned. that
the Judges caused tho following 10 be
published at the head Of the editorial
column in the Lao Journal Tho edi.
torial said
We have been informed that solici-
tations for appointment as referees
receivers and commissioners have be-
como so frequent as to amount 10
positive nuisance. The mail of Jus
tees holding certain parts OF the
court Is clogscd with begging lot
ters' OF this kind. While. OF course
our admonitlon Is not addressed 10
members OF the bar class, we
would say a word to certain lawyers
whose commercial proclivities lead
them to ignore the proprieties Of pro-
fessonal life. The element OF per-
sonal confidence il involved in all
judicial appointments. 1t ought TO be
obvious, therefore, that general so
licitation besides being Incompatible
al nj
practically futile.
a fragrant case OF the conduct CON-
domned by justice Greenbaum became
known through a report submitted TO Jus
tice Giegerich by William 4. burlington
as referee. to take the accounting of Louis
Ross as receiver Of property under fore
closure in a suit brought by Blanche
kronenthal against Louis Rosenthal and
oH'ers' .&ss 40
Was Receiver of Rents.
In the case before Referee burlington,
Ross was receiver OF the rents OF n tene-
| ment house at 2i6 Cherry street HIS
only duty was to attend to the collection
OF the rents and use such part of the money
collected as might he necessary to keep
the building In repair during his receiver
ship. ON his accounting Ross asked
1929 for services extra compensation for
extraordinary services and s775 for money
expended and Indebtedness incurred in ex-
cess of the amount of rents collected and
also an allowance TO his attorney for pro-
| fessional services. to bo paid out OF the
moneys received for the sale OF the prop
erty. The plaintiff objected to the ac.
counting and alleged that many payments
were made as the result of fraud and col.
| fusion.
| In his report Referee burlington pointed
| out that the receivers duty "a to making
| repairs 10 the property was confined to
such HI We're absolutely necessary, to be-
| paid for only out of the rents collected
| The receiver collected only 1905 In rents.
| had a deposit OF $40 made by "A tenant.
and S32 received for the cancellation OF
| insurance policies. while his report showed
an expenditure of s1,t24 and an Indebted
ness of 1857, making total OF s1,6s1.
Accordingly the total expenditure was
nearly 100 per cent more than the amount
| OF rents collected, and of this amount
| $40 more than the amount OF the rents
was paid for painting. plastering and
| decorating done by one Moses a. Wener
IA cousin OF Ross wife, who had done
all such work for Mr.. Ross as receiver
| for eight years past, as IL appears Mr..
Ross is not a novice having had many
| receiverships. In fact he told tho plain
tins attorney that he had been receiver
on many occasions and knew his duty.
The bills of Weiner and one William
Sinkovitz. plumber. amounted to sl,20s.
or 1865 in excess of the rents, While
Ross paid the bulk OF the claims of these
| two contractors he failed TO pay the jani-
tors wages of $40 month for two
months.
The plaintiffs attorney excepted to pay
ments of s56S to Weiner as excessive.
fraudulent and collusve and also 10 a
payment OF Sal to Miss Hattie Lewis for
collecting the rents, The referee said that
| n
erty not to waste the estate or prevent
"A surplus by unnecessary expenditure. and
that. judged by the established rules OF
trust administration. this experienced
receiver seems to have been found want
!, ing"
Com missions Are Denied.
Ths referee disallowNd certain pay
ments made by Ross TO Weiner, and said
that the most perplexing feature OF Welh'
ers bill was "A charge for painting I'VE
halls In apartments that had no halls, and
, for two bedrooms " three apartments
having only one. The receiver and the
contractor explained that the numbers on
the apartments had been changed ann
that this explained the discrepancy In the
bill. The referee said that the testimony
was most unsatisfactory aud evasive'
but as 1t seemed iGpossihle that so trans
parent fraud would be attempted ne
|
disalowed the commissions 10 Hhtle
, Lewis because there was no proof OF the
amount collected and the receiver was not
authorized TO double his commissions by
, paying Il collector regardless OF services
< The receiver advised that about WV
4 of Ross accounting he disdllowed ana
that he he compelled to pay more thah
$500 as the cost OF the hearing making
. the total cost about $1,000. The receiver
q was also deprived of all commissions
In approving -he referees report Jus
| tlce Giegerich said he was convinced that
. the receiver transcribed his power ~
order to enhance his compensation ana
benefit his cousin by marriage, painter
THE court regretted that the opinion ''n'
4 not be placed in the hands OF over.
receiver as | fear there are many ~
them inclined to undue freedom in mok ne
expenditures on property entrusted 10 ihe'r
= care"
y y q