Legal Opinion
In re the Estate of Hurewitz
New York Surrogate's Court
Decided May 24, 1940PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Wingate, S.
The Court of Appeals has repeatedly determined that an unretained attorney may not seek remuneration from a person by whom he was not retained by reason of an incidental benefit resulting from services performed in the interest of his client. (Matter of Loomis, 273 N. Y. 76, 82; Nieman-Irving & Co., Inc., v. Lazenby, 263 id. 91, 94; Matter of Attorney-General v. North American Life Ins. Co., 91 id. 57, 62. See, also, Matter of Frame, 162 Misc. 34, 35; Matter of Curley, 161 id. 391, 397; Matter of Winburn, 160 id. 49, 52; Matter of Ziegler, 170 id. 748, 751.) As to any persons other…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Matter of LoomisNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
- In re the Estate of StumppNew York Surrogate's Court · 1934
- In Re the Accounting of De VanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1912
- In re the Estate of FrameNew York Surrogate's Court · 1936
3Cited by5 opinions
- In re the Accounting of BeecherNew York Surrogate's Court · 1950
- In re the Estate of LinderAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1962
- Realty Equities Corp. v. GerosaNew York Supreme Court · 1960
- In re the Estate of PovlsenNew York Surrogate's Court · 1970
- In re the Estate of EnnisNew York Surrogate's Court · 1958