Interpleader fees

CPLR § 1006 Interpleader

Appel v Giddins, 2011 NY Slip Op 08215 (1st Dept., 2011)

Giddins's claim for costs and reasonable attorneys' fees may proceed because, notwithstanding plaintiff's characterization, her claims against Giddins are based on Giddins's performance of its duties as escrowee, and the contract provides for Giddins's recovery of costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with the performance of its duties as escrowee, which include responding to plaintiff's claims (see CPLR 1006[f]; Sun Life Ins. & Annuity Co. of N.Y. v Braslow, 38 AD3d 529 [2007]).


CPLR § 1006 Interpleader

Navarone Prods., N.V. v HSBC Gibbs Gulf Ins. Consultants Ltd., 2009 NY Slip Op 06367 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered
June 24, 2008, that, after a nonjury trial, found Navarone Productions,
N.V. entitled to certain film distribution revenues, and order, same
court and Justice, entered December 31, 2008, that, to the extent
appealed from, as limited by the briefs, directed Sony Pictures to pay
Navarone 60% of the revenues it is holding and all future revenues from
the film, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

This interpleader action required the trial court to determine
who was entitled to receive monies that Sony holds, and will receive in
the future, representing proceeds on the distribution of a 1970's movie
entitled Force Ten from Navarone.
In determining that plaintiff
Navarone Productions, N.V. was entitled to all monies and to future
distributions, the trial court based its findings on a fair
interpretation of the evidence (see Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, [*2]495
[1992]), especially in light of appellant's scheme with the
interpleaded defendants to defraud Sony into wrongfully paying them by
failing to notify Sony that appellant had already received full payment
under a settlement agreement
(see generally Pecorella v Greater Buffalo Press, Inc.,
107 AD2d 1064, 1065 [1985]). We find that the court did not err in its
evidentiary rulings and that the rulings, regardless of their validity,
would not have altered the outcome of the case (see e.g. Vertical Computer Sys., Inc. v Ross Sys., Inc., 59 AD3d 205 [2009]).

The bold is mine.