Denial of intervention was a provident exercise of the motion court's discretion ( see, Matter of Pier v Board of Assessment Review, 209 AD2d 788, 789). The proposed new causes of action were time-barred as of the time of the proposed intervention ( see, Manhattan Plaza v Air Tech Indus:, 107 AD2d 578). Even if the new claim were identical or very similar to the original claims ( see, e.g., State of New York v General Elec. Co., 199 AD2d 595, 597-598), appellants are not "united in interest" with the original plaintiffs in Action No. 2 ( cf., e.g., Manti v New York City Tr. Auth., 146 AD2d 551). The initial omission of appellants as plaintiffs in Action No. 2 was the result of a conscious strategic decision ( see, e.g., A to Z Assocs. v Cooper, 215 AD2d 161, 162).
We have considered appellants' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.