In re Lahm

Headnote

Matter of Lahm, 179 App. Div. 757 , affirmed.

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered November 9, 1917, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion for a summary order under section 475 of the Judiciary Law to compel an attorney to pay over money collected upon a judgment. Petitioners recovered a judgment against one Siegfried Blumenkron and caused him to be examined in proceedings supplementary to execution. Upon that examination it appeared that Blumenkron had a claim against S. Blumenkron, Inc., up on which an action had been begun and was still pending. Blumenkron thereupon executed an assignment of said cause of action to plaintiff’s petitioners. In

the action upon said claim so assigned the respondent here was the attorney for Blumenkron, and the assignment was made “ subject to the claim and interest of Herman C. Pollack, my attorney, in said action of one-half of the recovery for his services herein.” The respondent was cognizant of this assignment, and thereafter prosecuted the action of Blumenkron against S. Blumenkron, Inc., to judgment. After the recovery of of the judgment he undertook to prosecute, and did prosecute, proceedings supplementary to execution against S. Blumenkron, Inc. As a result thereof he accepted from one of the officers of the corporation, judgment debtor, the sum of five hundred dollars in satisfaction of his said attorney’s interest in the judgment, and assigned his interest in said judgment to said officer, at the same time delivering to said officer “ certain papers which might facilitate action by said assignee.” He then advised the petitioners, through their attorney, that he had “ withdrawn from the ease of Blumenkron v. Blumenkron and am doing nothing further in the matter.”