From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vacco v. Herrera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 23, 1998
247 A.D.2d 608 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

February 23, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants failed to demonstrate that they had any real interest in the property which is the subject of this civil forfeiture action ( see, Osman v. Sternberg, 168 A.D.2d 490). In addition, they did not provide a sufficient explanation for not filing their motion to intervene in a timely manner ( see, CPLR 1012, 1013 N.Y.C.P.L.R.). They did not move to intervene until seven months after being notified of the commencement of the action and four months after a default judgment was entered against the named defendants ( see, Rectory Realty Assocs. v. Town of Southampton, 151 A.D.2d 737; Krenitsky v. Ludlow Motor Co., 276 App. Div. 511). Under these circumstances, the appellants effectively waived any right they had to participate in the litigation ( see, Krenitsky v. Ludlow Motor Co., supra).

Thompson, J.P., Joy, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Vacco v. Herrera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 23, 1998
247 A.D.2d 608 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Vacco v. Herrera

Case Details

Full title:DENNIS VACCO, as Attorney-General, in Charge of the New York State…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 23, 1998

Citations

247 A.D.2d 608 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
669 N.Y.S.2d 228

Citing Cases

T V Constr. Corp. v. Pratti

Intervention under CPLR 1012 and 1013 requires a timely motion ( see CPLR 1012, 1013; Oparaji v Weston, 293…

U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Bisono

The proposed intervenors' motion was made more than three and one-half years after the action was commenced…