First Metlife Investors Ins. Co. v. Filippino

Decision Date06 March 2019
Docket Number2017–01587,Index No. 101298/15
Citation93 N.Y.S.3d 594 (Mem),170 A.D.3d 672
Parties FIRST METLIFE INVESTORS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Erika FILIPPINO, Respondent, Vivian Amato, Individually, Appellant, et al., Defendant.
CourtNew 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

170 A.D.3d 673

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the motion of the defendant Erika 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 defendant Vivian 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 defendant Erika 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,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Adams v. Margulis
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • February 11, 2021
    ...vacated that order (see Forgione , 231 A.D.2d at 604, 647 N.Y.S.2d 811 ; see generally First Metlife Invs. Ins. Co. v. Filippino , 170 A.D.3d 672, 673-674, 93 N.Y.S.3d 594 [2d Dept. 2019] ; Matter of Alfieri , 203 A.D.2d 562, 563, 611 N.Y.S.2d 226 [2d Dept. 1994] ). Under these circumstance......
  • Stets v. Securian Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • March 25, 2020
    ...restraining orders from Daniel's and Milica's divorce proceeding. The Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division's holding in First Metlife Inv'rs Ins. Co. v. Filippino, is instructive. 170 A.D.3d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019). In that case, the decedent was party to a divorce action and sub......
  • Bomer v. Dean
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • June 17, 2021
    ...–––– [1960] ; Adams v. Margulis , 191 A.D.3d 1478, 1480, 141 N.Y.S.3d 630 [4th Dept. 2021] ; First Metlife Invs. Ins. Co. v. Filippino , 170 A.D.3d 672, 674, 93 N.Y.S.3d 594 [2d Dept. 2019] ). When abatement occurs, the court lacks jurisdiction to act (see First Metlife Invs. Ins. Co. , 170......
  • Ferdinand v. Salino
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • March 6, 2019
    ...invitees, videotaping or photographing the premises as well as the plaintiffs and their invitees, and any other action with the 170 A.D.3d 672intent to chill the economic value of the property such as deterring potential workers, utility service workers or other 95 N.Y.S.3d 306occupants." T......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT