You are here: / / UNTIMELY MOTION TO INTERVENE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

UNTIMELY MOTION TO INTERVENE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a motion to intervene in a foreclosure action was untimely and should have been dismissed. The potential intervenor (Shelepers) knew of the foreclosure action at the time the property was transferred to it but waited four months to bring the motion:

Intervention under CPLR 1012 and 1013 requires a timely motion … . Here, Shelepers purchased the subject property with the knowledge that this foreclosure action was pending, and yet it waited over four months before seeking leave to intervene. Under the circumstances of this case, Shelepers’ motion for leave to intervene in the action was untimely … . Castle Peak 2012-1 Loan Trust v Sattar, 2016 NY Slip Op 05111, 2nd Dept 6-29-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (UNTIMELY MOTION TO INTERVENE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/INTERVENE, MOTION TO (UNTIMELY MOTION TO INTERVENE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

You might also like
Questions of Fact Re: Whether Municipality Created the Dangerous Condition Thereby Negating the Written-Notice Requirement
Building Owner Entitled to Summary Judgment in Slip and Fall Case Based Upon Tracked In Water (Inclement Weather)–Tenant Ordinarily Does Not Have a Duty of Care Re: Common Areas
Motion to Set Aside a Verdict Properly Denied When Based Upon an Error Not Preserved by Objection
FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING THE REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
APPELLANT, WHICH HAD PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WHILE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PENDING, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO INTERVENE, CRITIERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE THAT THE LADDER TILTED CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO JUMP OFF WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Family Offense of Disorderly Conduct Not Proven—No Proof of Public Inconvenience, Annoyance, or Alarm
ALTHOUGH IT WAS ERROR TO DENY THE DEFENSE REQUEST FOR A RODRIGUEZ HEARING BASED UPON THE PROSECUTOR’S ASSERTION THE COMPLAINANT AND THE DEFENDANT KNEW EACH OTHER, THE TRIAL TESTIMONY DEMONSTRATED THE COMPLAINANT AND DEFENDANT IN FACT KNEW EACH OTHER; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE COURT OF APPEALS REQUIRES THAT THE IDENTIFICATION ISSUE BE RESOLVED BEFORE TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SHOW BOTH A JUSTIFIABLE EXCUSE AND A MERITORIOUS CAUSE OF... PROSECUTOR’S QUESTIONING DEFENDANT ABOUT AN ADMISSION ALLEGEDLY MADE TO...