Farfan v. Rivera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Farfan v. Rivera

33 A.D.3d 755, 823 N.Y.S.2d 199

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 17, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 33 A.D.3d 755 (Farfan v. Rivera) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Farfan v. Rivera, 33 A.D.3d 755, 823 N.Y.S.2d 199 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to declare the plaintiffs’ interest in a parcel of real property, the proposed intervenor, Rita Mallick, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated December 21, 2004, which denied her motion, among other things, for leave to intervene in this action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Denial of the appellant’s motion, among other things, for leave to intervene was justified on the ground that it was not accompanied by a proposed pleading (see CPLR 1014; Matter of Zehnder v State of New York, 266 AD2d 224 [1999]). In any event, the appellant failed to make a sufficient threshold showing that she had a real and substantial interest in the property (see Citibank, N.A. v Plagakis, 8 AD3d 604, 605 [2004]; Sieger v Sieger, 297 AD2d 33, 35-36 [2002]). Crane, J.E, Luciano, Rivera and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to declare the plaintiffs’ interest in a parcel of real property, the proposed intervenor, Rita Mallick, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated December 21, 2004, which denied her motion, among other things, for leave to intervene in this action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Denial of the appellant’s motion, among other things, for leave to intervene was justified on the ground that it was not accompanied by a proposed pleading (see CPLR 1014; Matter of Zehnder v State of New York, 266 AD2d 224 [1999]). In any event, the appellant failed to make a sufficient threshold showing that she had a real and substantial interest in the property (see Citibank, N.A. v Plagakis, 8 AD3d 604, 605 [2004]; Sieger v Sieger, 297 AD2d 33, 35-36 [2002]). Crane, J.E, Luciano, Rivera and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.3d 755, 823 N.Y.S.2d 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farfan-v-rivera-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack