In Manufacturer's & Traders Trust Co. v. Reliance Ins. Co. (8 NY3d 583 [2007]) a general contractor and its subcontractor agreed to deposit approximately $ 5.3 million with an escrow agent until June 1999, during which time, the subcontractor would attempt to negotiate settlements with its sub-subcontractors, with any balance left over in escrow to be paid to the general contractor. When one of the sub-subcontractors requested the escrow agent to withhold further payouts, the escrow agent commenced an impleader action to discharge it from all liability over the disputed funds; the Court directed the escrow agent to deposit the escrowed money with the court clerk. After it was ultimately held that the funds should be returned to the general contractor, the general contractor moved for entry of judgment against the subcontractor and sub-subcontractor in an amount equal to interest at the statutory rate for the time during which the funds were deposited in court. On appeal of the First Department's affirmance of the Supreme Court's grant of prejudgment interest, the Court of Appeals held that prejudgment interest was unwarranted. The Court of Appeals acknowledged that interpleader actions were equitable, and that CPLR 5001(a) permits interest awards in all equitable actions. However, CPLR 5001(a) authorizes interest "upon a sum awarded" which implied "that the interest must be paid by the party against whom the sum was awarded"; since there was no "sum awarded" against the subcontractor or sub-subcontractor, there was no predicate for an award of interest against them. The Court of Appeals then proceeded to explain the purpose of prejudgment interest: to require a person who owes money to pay compensation for the advantage received from the use of that money over a period of time. . Since the money was held by the clerk of the court, and the subcontractor and sub-subcontractor had no more had the use of the funds than the general contractor did, to award interest against the subcontractor and sub-subcontractor "would be to penalize them for a delay that brought them no benefit." Thus, prejudgment interest was also deemed unjustified. Furthermore, there was "also a more fundamental objection" in that the subcontractor and sub-subcontractor had not been found to have breached any contract or to have interfered unlawfully with the possession or enjoyment of any property. The Court noted that no court found that the subcontractor and sub-subcontractor's claims "were frivolous, that their conduct in the litigation was vexatious, or that they acted solely to cause delay." Since they were not found to have committed any "act or omission" that can be a basis for liability, the "possession or enjoyment" clause of CPLR 5001(a) did not apply.