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

Citation: Rent Stabilization Ass'n v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 252 A.D.2d 111 (1998)
Parent Document: Rent Stabilization Ass'n v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 252 A.D.2d 111 (1998)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 1998-12-17
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6161836/rent-stabilization-assn-v-new-y... ↗

Full Text

797 chars

Finally, Supreme Court also should have granted the motion to intervene by the tenant intervenors (see, CPLR 1013, 7802 [d]) as they have a “direct and substantial interest” in the outcome of this litigation (Matter of Pier v Board of Assessment Review, 209 AD2d 788, 789; see, e.g., County of Westchester v Department of Health, 229 AD2d 460, 461; Matter of White v Incorporated Vil. of Plandome Manor, 190 AD2d 854, 854-855, lv denied 83 NY2d 752; Matter of Stockdale v Hughes, 189 AD2d 1065, 1067; Matter of Tenants’ Union of W. Side v Beame, 47 AD2d 731) and petitioners have not demonstrated that their intervention would substantially prejudice them or cause delay (see, CPLR 1013; Matter of Pier v Board of Assessment Review, supra). Crew III, J. P., White, Peters and Graffeo, JJ., concur.

Other Sections in This Document (13)

Full Text