Case Name: In the Matter of the Estate of Emil Geiger, Deceased. Imra Kaszaras et al., Appellants; Bernard J. Goldberger et al., as Executors of Emil Geiger, Deceased, Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1959-12-30
Citations: 7 N.Y.2d 109
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Estate of Emil Geiger, Deceased. Imra Kaszaras et al., Appellants; Bernard J. Goldberger et al., as Executors of Emil Geiger, Deceased, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 109–114

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Estate of Emil Geiger, Deceased. Imra Kaszaras et al., Appellants; Bernard J. Goldberger et al., as Executors of Emil Geiger, Deceased, Respondents.
Argued October 13, 1959;
decided December 30, 1959.
Cornelius F. Gustav, in person, and A. J. Dell’Aquila for Cornelius F. Gustav and others, appellants.
I. The enactment of section 269 of the Surrogate’s Court Act was for the protection of nonresidents beneficially interested in decedents’ estates. (Matter of Weidberg, 172 Misc. 524; Matter of Steiner, 172 Misc. 950; Matter of Landau, 172 Misc. 651; Matter of Bold, 173 Misc. 545; Matter of Landau, 187 Misc. 925; Matter of Braier, 305 N. Y. 148.) II. The assignment of an interest in a decedent’s estate by an alien nonresident beneficiary to a resident attorney to cover legal fees, if reasonable, is proper and enforcible. (Matter of Leonhauser, 183 Misc. 863; Burnham v. Brush, 176 Misc. 39; Matter of Abruzzo, 139 Misc. 559.)
Edward Elman, Theodore Ornstein and Joseph Trachtman for respondents.
I. The application, insofar as it requests payment to petitioner Gustav on behalf of the legatees involved, was properly denied. II. The Surrogate correctly refused to be bound by the terms of the assignment to petitioner Gustav, though same was absolute on its face. (Matter of DiFillipp, 162 Misc. 423; Matter of Garrity, 167 Misc. 947; Matter of Bargel, 5 Misc 2d 657.)

Opinion:
Dye, J.
The individual petitioners, except Cornelius F. Gustav, are all presently citizens of and reside in Hungary and are distributees of the estate of Emil F. Geiger, deceased. Their distributive shares aggregating $29,166.70 are being withheld by the Surrogate, pursuant to section 269 of the Surrogate's Court Act, for reasons stated in Matter of Herz (7 Misc 2d 217). The petitioner Gustav was formerly a member of - the Bar of Hungary and is now a member of the New York Bar, domiciled in New York City.
This proceeding was brought by the petitioner Gustav individually and as attorney in fact for the aforesaid beneficiary petitioners for an order to compel the executors of the Geiger estate to pay him, as assignee, the sum of $7,291.65, being 25% of the foreign beneficiaries' share of the estate given " in consideration of legal services rendered by said attorney to them " and to pay to said Gustav, as attorney in fact, the sum of $250 monthly for the account of each of the foreign beneficiaries to the extent of their respective shares in the estate. The attorney in fact proposes to transfer the beneficial use of such funds to the respective beneficiaries by the purchase of so-called " Ikka " packages, which are an approved method for sending food and clothing in the nature of relief to persons residing in Hungary. We all agree that the petition, insofar as it concerned the payments of a distributive share to the petitioner distributees, was properly denied. The sole remaining issue is whether the assignment of 25% of the fund for legal services was also properly denied.
The purpose of section 269 as amended is to authorize the deposit of moneys or property in the Surrogate's Court in cases where transmission or payment to a beneficiary, legatee or other person resident in a foreign country might be circumvented by confiscation in Avhole or in part, and to authorize the impounding of the fund by the Surrogate to await the time when payment can be made to the beneficiary for his own benefit, use and control (cf. Bill or Revision Notes, 13B Gilbert-Bliss,Surrogate's Ct. Act, § 269).
The record before us does not demonstrate, nor have appellants shown, any circumstances to change the situation as it existed at the time of the Nassau County Surrogate's determination in Matter of Hers (supra). On its face, the assignment is of the distributees' share in said estate and, in light of •.the statute, relates to money which is not now within the distributees ' beneficial use or control. This is not an application 11 ' for and to fix and determine the compensation of an attorney for services rendered to an estate legatee, distributee or any person interested therein" (Surrogate's Ct. Act, § 231-a), nor is any showing made or attempted to be made as to whether 25% of the aggregate shares of these beneficiaries is a reasonable fee for services rendered. The petition, as we read it, is to enforce recognition of an assignment made in Hungary pertaining to moneys which are not now in the possession or control of the assignors but, in fact, are under the control of the Surrogate. So long as the distributive shares are properly being withheld by the Surrogate because of the special circumstances in which the beneficiaries find themselves as domieiliaries in an iron-curtain country, they are in no position presently to assign any part of the funds withheld. They may not place an assignee in a better position than they themselves enjoy as principals. This is not to say, however, that an attorney may not in a proper proceeding and upon a proper showing request a fixation of reasonable fees for services rendered, chargeable against the fund (Surrogate's Ct. Act, § 231-b).
The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs to the respondents payable out of the estate.