CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 86 Civ. 0395
Regular Panel Decision

Pressman v. Estate of Steinvorth

Alan Pressman, a New York attorney, sought attorney's fees and expenses incurred in commencing an interpleader action in 1986. The interpleader was initiated because Pressman held assets for Guido Steinvorth, whose contested will led to multiple claims against Pressman. The court had previously awarded interpleader funds to Olimpia Pena Tejera but granted Pressman fees only for initiating the interpleader. This decision evaluates Pressman's fee request, scrutinizing the specificity of charges and disallowing costs unrelated to the interpleader's commencement, such as those for accounting actions or earlier defenses. Ultimately, the court significantly reduced the requested amount, awarding Pressman $2,719.11.

Attorney's FeesInterpleader ActionStakeholder ReimbursementEstate LitigationVenezuelan LawContemporaneous Time RecordsDisbursementsRule 11 SanctionsAccounting ActionInternational Service
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. Cross Bay Contracting Corp.

This interpleader matter involved competing claims to interpleaded funds arising from a New York City public improvement contract awarded to Cross Bay Contracting Corporation. Colonia Insurance Company, as surety for Cross Bay, paid various subcontractors and sought to recover these funds. The City initiated an interpleader action, naming Cross Bay, Colonia, and the United States (by and through the IRS) as defendants. Colonia moved for summary judgment to claim the funds, which the IRS opposed, arguing the funds constituted an Article 3-A trust. The Court of Appeals dismissed Colonia's appeal as moot regarding a $100,000 reduction that was later restored. On the IRS's cross-appeal, the Court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, denying Colonia's motion for summary judgment. The Court held that the funds are an Article 3-A trust, giving priority to trust beneficiaries over Colonia's equitable subrogation rights, as Colonia had not paid all outstanding claims.

Construction LitigationInterpleaderSurety BondsPayment BondPerformance BondArticle 3-A TrustLien LawEquitable SubrogationSummary JudgmentMootness
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2007

Prudential Equity Group, LLC v. Ajamie

The Court, presided by District Judge Jed S. Rakoff, addressed a motion by defendants Brian Rosner and Rosner & Napierala, LLP to dismiss certain cross-claims filed by defendant John Moscow. This action originated as an interpleader by Prudential Equity Group, LLC concerning attorney's fees from an arbitration. Moscow's partnership cross-claims, distinct from his arbitration cross-claims, related to moneys owed from separate client representations unrelated to the interpleader's subject matter. The Court found no supplemental jurisdiction over these partnership cross-claims, determining they lacked a common nucleus of operative fact with the original interpleader action. Furthermore, even if jurisdiction existed, the Court would decline to exercise it due to compelling reasons, including the need for a separate trial and complicated discovery processes. The Court also rejected Moscow's fall-back argument for a set-off exception. Consequently, the Court reaffirmed its order granting the motion to dismiss Moscow's partnership cross-claims.

Interpleader ActionCross-ClaimsSupplemental JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionPartnership AgreementMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureCommon Nucleus of Operative FactSet-off ExceptionAttorney's Fees
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 1996

Takayama v. Schaefer

The case addresses whether an escrow agent, whose agreement is silent on dispute resolution, must deposit funds into court to avoid liability for interest and costs. Plaintiff Rie Takayama sued defendant Helmut Schaefer and his attorney, David E. Weissman (escrow agent), for the return of a $12,000 down payment after her mortgage application failed. Weissman held the funds in an IOLA account, requesting proof of good faith efforts. The trial court found for Takayama, holding both Schaefer and Weissman liable for the down payment, interest, and costs. The Appellate Term affirmed Weissman's liability for interest and costs, suggesting he should have used an interpleader action. This court reversed, ruling that an attorney-escrow agent, by securing funds in an IOLA account and awaiting a court order, performs the functional equivalent of an interpleader, thus avoiding personal liability for interest and costs.

escrow agent liabilityattorney ethicsreal estate contractcontract disputemortgage contingencyIOLA accountinterpleader actionfiduciary dutyappellate reviewinterest and costs
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bache & Co. v. Roland

This interpleader action was initiated by a brokerage house (plaintiff) to resolve conflicting claims over a fund consisting of money and shares. Defendants Roland and Zuckerman, partners in Hel-Mar Enterprises, both laid claim to the fund. Subsequently, Continental Insurance Company intervened as an additional defendant-claimant, alleging that Roland had defrauded them by claiming securities were lost, receiving replacement certificates, and then pledging the original 'lost' securities as collateral, forcing Continental to redeem them at a cost of $11,759.40. The court granted Continental partial summary judgment, awarding them the interpleaded fund. The remaining issue was Continental's cross-claim against Roland for the outstanding amount of the alleged fraud. The court, interpreting the cross-claim as invoking pendent jurisdiction, ultimately dismissed it without prejudice, citing considerations of judicial economy and the fact that the federal issue had been resolved, leaving solely a state claim between two New York citizens.

Interpleader ActionFraud ClaimPendent JurisdictionCross-Claim DismissalJudicial EconomyFederal Statutory InterpleaderSecurities DisputeInsurance ClaimCivil ProcedureDiscretionary Jurisdiction
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. v. Lewis

Defendants-appellants appealed a final judgment and order from the Supreme Court, which stemmed from an interpleader action initiated by the plaintiff under section *900285 of the Civil Practice Act. The original judgment had ruled that defendants-respondents were entitled to $27,572.50, funds held by the Treasurer of Saratoga County. The appellate court reviewed the case. After deliberation, the judgment and orders were unanimously affirmed. This decision was based on the opinion previously rendered by Mr. Justice Hughes in the court below.

Interpleader ActionAppellate ReviewFinal JudgmentOrder AffirmationSaratoga CountyCivil Practice ActFunds in DepositMonetary DisputeJudicial ReviewSupreme Court Appeal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 1958

West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. v. A. D. Lewis

The case involves an interpleader action brought by West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company concerning union dues collected from its employees. Rival claims for these funds were made by District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and an "Organizing Committee" formed by disaffiliating members of Local 12915. The core dispute revolved around the legitimacy of the disaffiliation and the validity of District 50's claim to the local's assets and checked-off dues. The court ultimately ruled in favor of District 50 and the temporary administrator of Local 12915, upholding the existing collective bargaining agreement and union constitution. The cross-claim by the "Organizing Committee" was dismissed, and the plaintiff was discharged from liability.

InterpleaderUnion Dues DisputeLabor Union DisaffiliationCollective BargainingProperty Rights of UnionsTemporary AdministrationNational Labor Relations BoardContract FrustrationDue ProcessTrade Union Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perlman v. Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC

Hildegard Perlman sued Fidelity, Ameriprise, Jonathan Blass, and Wendy Perlman, alleging violations of ERISA regarding her late husband Norman Perlman's IRA. She claimed entitlement to all IRA assets due to alleged lack of spousal consent for the transfer of Keogh plan assets into an IRA. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the plan was not governed by ERISA and that claims were time-barred. The Court granted summary judgment for defendants, determining Norman's Keogh plan was not an ERISA plan as it did not cover employees, and even if ERISA applied, the claims were untimely. The Court denied Perlman's cross-motion, declined jurisdiction over Ameriprise's interpleader, dismissed remaining state law claims without prejudice, and denied attorney's fees to all parties.

ERISAIRAKeogh PlanSpousal ConsentSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsInterpleaderDeclaratory Judgment ActFiduciary DutyEmployee Benefit Plan
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rubinbaum LLP v. Related Corporate Partners V

RubinBaum LLP initiated a statutory interpleader action concerning $906,963.56 in escrow funds, facing conflicting claims from Related Corporate Partners V, L.P., Related Corporate SLP, L.P. (Related Defendants), The Brannon Group, L.C. (Company), and D. Reid Brannon and Ivan I. Brannon (Brannons). The Brannons moved to dismiss the action and cross-claims for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, and alternatively sought to transfer the case to the Southern District of Florida. The court denied these motions, affirming its jurisdiction over the Brannons as 'claimants' with potential interests in the funds. The court also exercised supplemental personal jurisdiction over the cross-claims, noting their factual relatedness and the Brannons' sufficient minimum contacts with New York, partially due to a forum selection clause in the escrow agreement.

Interpleader ActionPersonal JurisdictionNationwide Service of ProcessSupplemental JurisdictionCross-ClaimsForum Selection ClauseVenue TransferMinimum ContactsDue ProcessEscrow Agreement
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pray v. Cement & Concrete Workers, District Council Welfare Fund

The plaintiff, son of a deceased union member, moved for summary judgment to claim interest on $2,500 death benefits from the defendant union. The union had initially withheld payment due to conflicting claims, advising the plaintiff to obtain a court order. After the plaintiff initiated legal action, the union conceded entitlement and paid the principal sum on May 18, 1970. The defendant resisted paying interest, arguing no statutory requirement existed and that Insurance Law § 166-b was inapplicable. The court granted the plaintiff's motion, ruling that CPLR 5001 (subd. [b]) mandated interest from the cause of action's earliest ascertainable date. The court noted the union's failure to utilize CPLR 1006 (subd. [f]) for interpleader to limit its interest liability, concluding that by retaining the funds, the union was liable for interest to the successful claimant.

Summary JudgmentInterest on BenefitsDeath BenefitsUnion Welfare FundInterpleaderCPLR 3212CPLR 5001CPLR 1006Adverse ClaimsStakeholder Liability
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 13 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational