WAPNICK v. WAPNICK

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.