In re the Accounting of Best

200 Misc. 332, 107 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1951 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2316
CourtNew York Surrogate's Court
DecidedJuly 3, 1951
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 200 Misc. 332 (In re the Accounting of Best) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Surrogate's Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re the Accounting of Best, 200 Misc. 332, 107 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1951 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2316 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1951).

Opinion

Frankenthaler, S.

Four distributees of this estate, nationals of the Soviet Union, have petitioned the court for payment of their shares through a duly appointed attorney in fact. Whether payment is to be made directly to the distributees or to the city treasury, pursuant to section 269 of the Surrogate’s Court Act, depends upon the capacity of the petitioners to receive and use the funds transmitted (Matter of Yee Yoke Ban, 200 Misc. -). While it had previously been held that Bussian nationals were in a position to enjoy the benefit of their distributive shares (e.g., Matter of Alexandroff, 61 N. Y. S. 2d 866), the official policy of the United States Government has since changed. On February 27,1951, the Treasury Department pro[333]*333mulgated a regulation declaring that, as to nationals of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, “ there is not a reasonable assurance that a payee in those areas will actually receive checks or warrants drawn against funds of the United States ” and ordering that delivery of such checks and warrants be withheld (16 Federal Register 1818). In these circumstances, the court directs that the distributive shares of the petitioners herein be paid into the city treasury (Matter of Thomae, 199 Misc. 940; Matter of Geffen, 199 Misc. 756).

The compensation of the attorney in fact has been fixed in the sum of $400 plus $8.90 disbursements, to be paid proportionately from the shares of the foreign distributees.

Submit decree on notice settling the account accordingly.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lamb v. Estate of Szabo
235 A.2d 849 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1967)
In re the Estate of Borok
49 Misc. 2d 870 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1966)
State Land Board v. Pekarek
378 P.2d 735 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1963)
In re the Estate of Denisuk
34 Misc. 2d 137 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1962)
In Re Estate of Markewitsh
163 A.2d 232 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1960)
In re the Accounting of Dobo
204 Misc. 975 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1953)
In re the Accounting of Green
111 N.E.2d 424 (New York Court of Appeals, 1953)
In re the Accounting of Holzer
203 Misc. 920 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1952)
In re the Estate of Klein
203 Misc. 762 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1952)
In re the Accounting of Aronson
202 Misc. 244 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1952)
In re the Accounting of Terry
200 Misc. 543 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1951)
In re the Accounting of Wank
199 Misc. 1119 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
200 Misc. 332, 107 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1951 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-accounting-of-best-nysurct-1951.