Rent Stabilization Ass'n v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 252 A.D.2d 111 (1998)

Having determined that the City should have been joined as a necessary party, we need not detain ourselves to any great extent with the somewhat related issue of whether it should have been permitted to intervene as an “interested” party (CPLR 7802 [d]). Clearly, the City is an interested party. Supreme Court erred, however, in permitting the City to intervene for the sole purpose of filing a motion to dismiss and in dismissing the petition. The CPLR does not recognize “limited” intervention; rather, “a successful intervenor becomes a party for all purposes” (Matter of Greater N. Y. Health Care Facilities Assn. v DeBuono, 91 NY2d 716, 720 [emphasis in original]).3 Whereas the City could have moved to intervene and simultaneously make a preanswer motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 and 7804 (f), it could not “limit” its intervention. Moreover, as conceded by respondent, the petition does state a valid cause of action against it.