From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wapnick v. Wapnick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 10, 2002
295 A.D.2d 422 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-06655

Submitted May 15, 2002.

June 10, 2002.

In an action, inter alia, to set aside an alleged fraudulent transaction, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Raab, J.), dated July 23, 2001, which denied the motion of Harold Wapnick for leave to intervene as of right in the action.

Harold Wapnick, Brooklyn, N.Y., non-party appellant pro se.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant's motion for leave to intervene as of right in the action, since he failed to offer relevant evidence to prove that he had a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the litigation (see CPLR 1012; Perl v. Aspromonte Realty Corp., 143 A.D.2d 824; Vantage Petroleum v. Board of Assessment Review of Town of Babylon, 91 A.D.2d 1037, affd 61 N.Y.2d 695).

In light of our determination, it is unnecessary to reach the appellant's remaining contentions.

RITTER, J.P., FLORIO, GOLDSTEIN and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Wapnick v. Wapnick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 10, 2002
295 A.D.2d 422 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Wapnick v. Wapnick

Case Details

Full title:LISA WAPNICK, respondent, v. RUTH WAPNICK, ET AL., defendants; HAROLD…

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

Date published: Jun 10, 2002

Citations

295 A.D.2d 422 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
743 N.Y.S.2d 318

Citing Cases

Sieger v. Sieger

The court, in its discretion, may permit a person to intervene, inter alia, "when the person's claim or…

PNC Bank v. Oatkin

Upon such renewal and consideration of the motion seeking leave to intervene de novo, this Court denies the…