Generally speaking, most people want to avoid becoming entangled in litigation. But what happens when an action is pending and, although your client is not a party, his or her interests may be adversely affected? Move to intervene.
Intervention is a procedure whereby an outsider can become a party to a pending action on its own initiative. Intervention is sometimes available as of right (see CPLR 1012), sometimes only in the court’s discretion (see CPLR 1013), but it must be brought by motion in all instances, accompanied by a proposed pleading setting forth the claim or defense for which intervention is sought (see CPLR 1014).
The Appellate Division, Second Department recently reiterated the principles governing motions for leave to intervene in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, N.Y. v Christ the King Regional High Sch, 2018 NY Slip Op 06131. In that case, the plaintiff agreed to convey title to a parcel of property to the defendant on the condition that the premises would not be used for any purpose other than for the operation of a Catholic high school. But in 2002, the defendant leased a portion of the premises to a non-party (“Non-Party 1”), which, in 2013, sublet a portion of the premises to another non-party (“Non-Party 2”), who used the leased portion to operate a charter middle school.
The plaintiff sued the defendant seeking, among other things, an injunction prohibiting the defendant from using any portion of the property as a charter school. After the plaintiff was awarded partial summary judgment, both non-parties (the “Non-Parties”) moved to intervene as defendants in the action. The Commercial Division in Queens County (Hon. Marguerite A. Grays) denied the Non-Parties’ motions.
The Appellate Division, Second Department reversed, reasoning that the Non-Parties each “have a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the litigation and that, although their respective interests are aligned with those of [the defendant] and with each other, [the defendant] cannot fully represent those interests.” The Court noted that although neither of the Non-Parties would be bound by a judgment in the action, if the plaintiff prevailed, the defendant would be forced to break its lease with Non-Party 1, which in turn would be forced to break its sublease with Non-Party 2. The Court concluded that the Non-Parties should have been allowed to intervene under these circumstances.
So, if your client has a dog in someone else’s fight and wants to intervene, under which CPLR provision should you move? CPLR 1012 specifies three narrow grounds for intervention as a matter of right: (1) where a statute expressly confers such right; (2) where the person seeking to intervene “is or may be bound by the judgment” and where representation of the person’s interest “is or may be inadequate”; and (3) when an action concerns property in which a nonparty has an interest and the nonparty may be adversely affected by the judgment. By contrast, CPLR 1013 allows for intervention in the court’s discretion (i.e., permissive intervention), thereby providing an additional or alternative ground for intervention based simply on a showing that the intervenor’s claim or defense shares a common question of law or fact with a claim or defense in the pending action.
But, whether intervention is sought as a matter of right under CPLR 1012, or as a matter of discretion under CPLR 1013 is of “little practical significance” because intervention will be permitted where, as in the case above, the intervenor has “a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings.”
Want more tips on New York practice and procedure? Subscribe to the New York Commercial Division Practice blog and receive an email notification when a new post is published.