First Metlife Investors Ins. Co. v. Filippino

• Decision Date: 06 March 2019
• Docket Number: 2017–01587,Index No. 101298/15
• Citation: 170 A.D.3d 672,93 N.Y.S.3d 594
• Parties: FIRST METLIFE INVESTORS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Erika FILIPPINO, Respondent, Vivian Amato, Individually, Appellant, et al., Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

170 A.D.3d 672

93 N.Y.S.3d 594 (Mem)

FIRST METLIFE INVESTORS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,

v.Erika FILIPPINO, Respondent,Vivian Amato, Individually, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

2017–01587

Index No. 101298/15

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—October 26, 2018

March 6, 2019

Stephen Bilkis, Garden City, N.Y. (Scott L. Steinberg of counsel), for appellant.

Kevin P. McKernan(Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C., New York, N.Y. [Arnold E. DiJoseph III ], of counsel), for respondent.

LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the motion of the defendantErika Filippino which was, in effect, for summary judgment on so much of her cross claim as sought to recover the proceeds of a particular life insurance policy, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the defendantVivian Amato, individually.

On August 6, 2008, the plaintiff, First Metlife Investors Insurance Company(hereinafter Metlife), issued a life insurance policy (hereinafter the subject policy) to Frank Filippino(hereinafter the decedent).The decedent's wife, the defendantErika Filippino(hereinafter Filippino), was designated the sole primary beneficiary of the subject policy.In August 2013, Filippino commenced an action for a divorce and ancillary relief (hereinafter the divorce action), and served the decedent with the summons and complaint in the divorce action, which included the "automatic orders" set forth in Dometic Relations Law§ 236(B)(2)(b) enjoining the decedent from changing the beneficiary of any of his life insurance policies during the pendency of the divorce action.On October 11, 2013, while the divorce action was pending, the decedent changed the beneficiary designation of the subject policy from Filippino to his son, C.F., as sole primary beneficiary of the subject policy, and designated his sister, the defendantVivian Amato, as custodian for C.F.It is alleged that thereafter, the beneficiary designation of the subject policy was changed again, this time to Amato, individually.On June 21, 2014, while the divorce action was in the pretrial/discovery phase, the decedent died.

Both Filippino and Amato asserted claims for the proceeds of the subject policy.Metlife then commenced this interpleader action, naming, as defendants, Filippino and Amato, both individually and as custodian for C.F. Filippino asserted a cross claim against Amato, both individually and as...