OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Protective Life Insurance Company (“Protective”) brings this interpleader action against defendants Cheryl Mehrkar and Stacy N. Previte, as personal representative of the estate of Anthony Louis Previte (the “Estate”), to resolve defendants’ competing claims to the death benefit of decedent Anthony Previte’s life insurance policy. (Doc. #1 (“Compl.”)). Now pending is the Estate’s unopposed1 motion for summary judgment. (Doc. #34). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1335. BACKGROUND The Estate has submitted a memorandum of law, a statement of material undisputed facts pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1,2 and supporting declarations and exhibits. Together, they reflect the following factual background. On August 19, 1993, Aetna Life Insurance and Annuity Company3 issued a policy insuring the life of Anthony Previte for an initial specified amount of $54,902. (Doc. #34-4 (the “Policy”) at ECF 4, 19).4 At the time the Policy was issued, Anthony Previte was married to Cheryl Previte (now Cheryl Mehrkar). Mehrkar was designated the Policy’s primary beneficiary. The Policy provides “the rights of any beneficiary who dies before the Insured belong to the Owner” (Id. at ECF 8) — the “Owner” in this case being the insured, Anthony Previte. (Id. at ECF 4). Mehrkar and Anthony Previte divorced in May 1996, and Anthony Previte subsequently married Stacy Previte on April 15, 2008. Stacy and Anthony Previte remained married until Anthony’s death on July 11, 2022. Protective alleges that in August 2022, Mehrkar submitted a claim for the Policy’s death benefit and attached a copy of the Judgment of Divorce between Mehrkar and Anthony Previte. Protective contends it informed Mehrkar of its understanding that, under New York’s revocationupon-divorce statute, her entitlement to the death benefit was revoked upon her divorce from Anthony Previte. See N.Y. Est. Powers & Trusts Law §5-1.4. Protective alleges Mehrkar nonetheless continued to “pursue her claim” to the Policy’s proceeds. (Compl. 16). On December 5, 2022, Protective commenced this interpleader action, requesting that the Court determine whether Mehrkar or the Estate is entitled to the Policy’s death benefit. DISCUSSION I. Interpleader Relief Under the federal interpleader statute, a stakeholder facing competing claims to money or property may join the adverse claimants in a single suit so that a court may adjudicate entitlement to the res. See 28 U.S.C. §1335. Interpleader relief is proper when (i) the amount in controversy exceeds $500, (ii) there are adverse claimants, at least two of whom are diverse from one another, “without regard to the citizenship of other claimants or the stakeholder,” and (iii) the stakeholder deposits the money or property with the court. N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Conn. Dev. Auth., 700 F.2d 91, 95 n.5 (2d Cir. 1983). Interpleader actions ordinarily proceed in two steps: a court (i) determines the requirements of Section 1335 have been met and relieves the stakeholder of liability, and (ii) “proceeds to adjudicate the claims before it just as it would in any other civil action.” Avant Petroleum, Inc. v. Banque Paribas, 853 F.2d 140, 143 (2d Cir. 1988). “[T]his bifurcation is not mandatory, however, and the entire action may be disposed of at one time. N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Conn. Dev. Auth., 700 F.2d at 95. Further, the interpleader statute “is remedial and to be liberally construed.” Ashton v. Paul, 918 F.2d 1065, 1070 (2d Cir. 1990). Thus, an interpleader plaintiff “is not required to evaluate the merits of conflicting claims at its peril; rather, it need only have a good faith concern about duplicitous litigation and multiple liability if it responds to the requests of certain claimants and not to others.” Sotheby’s, Inc. v. Garcia, 802 F. Supp. 1058, 1065 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). Interpleader relief is appropriate here. The Policy’s death benefit exceeds $500, and there is diversity of citizenship between the defendants. (Compl.
