AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

LISA WAPNICK, respondent, v. RUTH WAPNICK, ET AL., defendants; HAROLD WAPNICK, non-party appellant.

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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

WAPNICK v. WAPNICK
(Jun 10, 2002)