In Matter of Devlin, 182 AD2d 322 [1992] the Appellate Division, Second Department, considered the Abandoned Property Law relevant to its analysis of whether a fee agreement between an administrator and an heir locator was fair and reasonable. The Court discussed the purpose underlying Abandoned Property Law 1416, enacted in 1980, as follows: "The statute ... was a legislative effort to specifically regulate the activities of locator businesses .... The sponsoring memorandum ... explains the purpose of the law as follows: "'In the processing of claims for recovery of abandoned property, this Department has noted the activities of a number of persons who allegedly conduct businesses the purpose of which is to locate the owners of such property. While businesses of this type are not illegal, many of the practices of persons operating these businesses are unfair and unreasonable, and serve to exploit the property owners. "'This bill would provide protection to the property owners, by regulating the agreement under which the locator acts on behalf of the property owner'" (Matter of Devlin, 182 AD2d at 329 ). The Appellate Division went on to hold in Devlin that the 15% cap under Abandoned Property Law 1416 was a factor for the Surrogate to consider when fixing the fee of the heir locator.