Memo in Support of Motion to Intervene (PDF) - New York Civil ...

in a myriad of ways. Accordingly, proposed intervenors prove that they are or "may be
bound by the judgment" for the purposes of rule 1012 (a) (2).
Because proposed intervenors have established all of the requirements for
intervention by right pursuant to CPLR 1012 Ca)(2), this Court should grant their motion
to intervene.
II.
The Court Should Also Grant Permissive Intervention
In the alternative to granting intervention of right, this Court should exercise its
discretion to grant permissive intervention under CPLR 10l3 because the proposed
intervenors' representational interests are directly at stake and the named defendants not
only do not have the same kinds of interests at issue, but have affirmatively indicated that
they cannot be relied upon to protect those interests. The rule for permissive intervention
provides:
"Upon timely motion, any person may be permitted to intervene in any action
when ... the person's claim or defense and the main action have a common
question of law 01' fact. In exercising its discretion, the court shall consider
whether the intervention will unduly delay the determination of the action 01'
prejudice the substantial rights of any party."
CCPLR10l3.)
As with rule 1012, courts should liberally construe CPLR 10l3 to grant
intervention. (Bay State Heating & Air Conditioning Co. v American Ins, Co" 78 AD2d
147, 149 [4th Dept 1980].)
Courts have granted permissive intervention when the proposed intervenor can
show that it would experience adverse effects as a result of the case, even where the
injury is not pecuniary 01' financial in nature. (See Town of Southold
v Cross Sound Ferry
Servs., 256 AD2d 403, 404 [2d Dept 1998] (granting an organization's motion to
18