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
Absence of 90-Day Demand to Serve a Note of Issue Precluded Dismissal of Lawsuit Based on Gross Laches (12-Year Delay)
GRANDMOTHER ENTITLED TO HEARING ON WHETHER SHE HAS STANDING TO PETITION FOR VISITATION.
HERE THE “BORROWER” SIGNED THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT AND THEN CONVEYED A TWO-THIRDS INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY TO TWO “OWNERS” WHO DID NOT SIGN THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT; THE BANK SOUGHT TO RECOVER THE COSTS OF MAINTAINING THE ALLEGEDLY ABANDONED PROPERTY UNDER “QUASI CONTRACT” THEORIES; THE QUASI-CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION WERE DISMISSED BECAUSE THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT WAS DEEMED TO COVER THE “BORROWER” AND THE NONSIGNATORY “OWNERS” (SECOND DEPT).
THE 2019 MOTION TO RESTORE THE ACTION TO ACTIVE STATUS AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE WAS VACATED IN 2012 SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; LACHES DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THERE HAS BEEN NO SERVICE OF A 90-DAY DEMAND PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).
“Law Office Failure” Excuse for Failure to Enter a Default Judgment Within One Year Not Sufficient
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, EVIDENCE THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS INSPECTED “MORE THAN AN HOUR” BEFORE AND EVIDENCE OTHERS WERE IN THE AREA AT THE TIME OF THE FALL DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant’s Failure to Comply with Discovery Orders Warranted Striking the Answer
FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WHICH CAN BE WAIVED; THE JUDGE, THEREFORE, SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION ON THAT GROUND; PETITION REINSTATED (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 © 2025 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...