Wapnick v. Wapnick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wapnick v. Wapnick

295 A.D.2d 422, 743 N.Y.S.2d 318, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6078

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

DecidedJune 10, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 422 (Wapnick v. Wapnick) 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

Wapnick v. Wapnick, 295 A.D.2d 422, 743 N.Y.S.2d 318, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6078 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—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.

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 AD2d 824; Vantage Petroleum v Board of Assessment Review of Town of Babylon, 91 AD2d 1037, affd 61 NY2d 695).

In light of our determination, it is unnecessary to reach the appellant’s remaining contentions. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Gold-stein and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—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.

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 AD2d 824; Vantage Petroleum v Board of Assessment Review of Town of Babylon, 91 AD2d 1037, affd 61 NY2d 695).

In light of our determination, it is unnecessary to reach the appellant’s remaining contentions. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Gold-stein and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 422, 743 N.Y.S.2d 318, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wapnick-v-wapnick-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack