In re Rapoport

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Rapoport

91 A.D.3d 509, 937 N.Y.2d 27

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 17, 2012·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

The Surrogate properly denied the proposed intervenors’ request to intervene in the reformation proceeding regarding the testator’s will. The proposed intervenors are not named in the will — a fact that they concede — and cannot fulfill the requirement under CPLR 1012 that the judgment may adversely affect their interests (see Matter of Vaughn, 267 AD2d 763, 763-764 [1999]; Matter of Flemm, 85 Misc 2d 855, 857 [1975]). Indeed, the proposed intervenors base their argument in favor of intervention on the occurrence of a contingent event that [510]*510might or might not occur at an indeterminate time in the future. The distribution, if any, would rest in the executors’ sole discretion. Thus, the proposed intervenors have no standing to intervene (see Matter of May, 213 AD2d 838, 839 [1995], lv dismissed 85 NY2d 1032 [1995]).

The proposed intervenors’ appeal from the reformation decree is improper because they were properly denied leave to intervene, and the appeal therefore must be dismissed. Concur— Tom, J.P, Catterson, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

The Surrogate properly denied the proposed intervenors’ request to intervene in the reformation proceeding regarding the testator’s will. The proposed intervenors are not named in the will — a fact that they concede — and cannot fulfill the requirement under CPLR 1012 that the judgment may adversely affect their interests (see Matter of Vaughn, 267 AD2d 763, 763-764 [1999]; Matter of Flemm, 85 Misc 2d 855, 857 [1975]). Indeed, the proposed intervenors base their argument in favor of intervention on the occurrence of a contingent event that [510]*510might or might not occur at an indeterminate time in the future. The distribution, if any, would rest in the executors’ sole discretion. Thus, the proposed intervenors have no standing to intervene (see Matter of May, 213 AD2d 838, 839 [1995], lv dismissed 85 NY2d 1032 [1995]).

The proposed intervenors’ appeal from the reformation decree is improper because they were properly denied leave to intervene, and the appeal therefore must be dismissed. Concur— Tom, J.P, Catterson, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

In re Rapoport, 91 A.D.3d 509, 937 N.Y.2d 27 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

91 A.D.3d 509 (In re Rapoport) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related