Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Brody

New York Supreme Court

Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Brody

35 Misc. 2d 384, 228 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3387

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 3, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 35 Misc. 2d 384 (Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Brody) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Brody, 35 Misc. 2d 384, 228 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3387 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Roscoe Y. Elsworth, J.

In this action for interpleader plaintiff seeks to deposit the sum of $8,375.86 into court. The only issue raised is whether plaintiff shall have an allowance for legal services in connection with the action. It asserts that such are permissible under the following provision of subdivision 7 of section 285 of the Civil Practice Act: * ‘ The court shall impose terms relating to payment of expenses, costs and disbursements as may be just and proper and which may be charged against the subject matter of the action or the amount in dispute.”

The practice of allowing reasonable attorneys fees as well as other costs to a plaintiff stakeholder out of funds deposited in court has long been sanctioned and approved in the Federal courts. (Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Bondurant, 27 F. 2d 464; Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Morris, 61 F. 2d 104.) Under our own statute it seems to the court that a fair and practical interpretation of the term “ expenses ” must lead to a construction that includes reasonable counsel fees that the stakeholder is called upon to incur in effecting the deposit. It is so held here.

The plaintiff’s motion is granted and in keeping with the determination above made the sum of $500 is allowed to plaintiff as an expense for reasonable counsel fees, plus the sum of $64.35 for disbursements, the same to be charged against the funds with which the action is concerned.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Roscoe Y. Elsworth, J.

In this action for interpleader plaintiff seeks to deposit the sum of $8,375.86 into court. The only issue raised is whether plaintiff shall have an allowance for legal services in connection with the action. It asserts that such are permissible under the following provision of subdivision 7 of section 285 of the Civil Practice Act: * ‘ The court shall impose terms relating to payment of expenses, costs and disbursements as may be just and proper and which may be charged against the subject matter of the action or the amount in dispute.”

The practice of allowing reasonable attorneys fees as well as other costs to a plaintiff stakeholder out of funds deposited in court has long been sanctioned and approved in the Federal courts. (Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Bondurant, 27 F. 2d 464; Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Morris, 61 F. 2d 104.) Under our own statute it seems to the court that a fair and practical interpretation of the term “ expenses ” must lead to a construction that includes reasonable counsel fees that the stakeholder is called upon to incur in effecting the deposit. It is so held here.

The plaintiff’s motion is granted and in keeping with the determination above made the sum of $500 is allowed to plaintiff as an expense for reasonable counsel fees, plus the sum of $64.35 for disbursements, the same to be charged against the funds with which the action is concerned.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Misc. 2d 384, 228 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metropolitan-life-insurance-v-brody-nysupct-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack