From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Loewentheil v. O'Hara

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 29, 2006
30 A.D.3d 360 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

8948N.

June 29, 2006.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered on or about November 21, 2005, which granted the motion of nonparty O'Hara to intervene on behalf of the corporate defendant, directed that the caption be amended to add her name as a party defendant, granted her leave to serve a verified answer and counterclaim, and vacated and set aside the default judgment, same court and Justice, entered June 10, 2005, in plaintiffs' favor, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

McCarter English, LLP, New York (Thomas M. Smith of counsel), for appellants.

Stern Zingman LLP, New York (Joel S. Stern of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ., concur.


O'Hara, a founder of and 37.5% shareholder in the corporate defendant, was properly granted intervenor status in view of her substantial interest in the outcome of plaintiffs' action to recover on disputed promissory notes allegedly issued by the corporate defendant and purportedly transferred to them from the original controlling shareholder ( see e.g. Agostino v. Soufer, 284 AD2d 147). Plaintiffs, who intended to collect on the notes by selling the corporation's primary asset, a property at 13th Street in Manhattan where O'Hara has both resided and operated her theatre company since the 1970s, did not set forth the consideration they allegedly paid for their controlling interest in the corporate defendant. The corporation, by initial agreement, was to be closely held to further the purpose of the theatre company. Intervenor status for O'Hara was further warranted given that plaintiffs, as directors, admittedly allowed the corporation to default in the action, which had been commenced to collect on the notes ( see e.g. Archdiocese of Ethiopian Orthodox Church in U.S. Can. v. Yesehaq, 232 AD2d 332). Under the circumstances, the corporate defendant's default was excusable and the potential merits of the defense apparent, thus justifying vacatur of the default.


Summaries of

Loewentheil v. O'Hara

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 29, 2006
30 A.D.3d 360 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Loewentheil v. O'Hara

Case Details

Full title:STEPHAN LOEWENTHEIL et al., Appellants, v. EDITH O'HARA et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 29, 2006

Citations

30 A.D.3d 360 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 5228
819 N.Y.S.2d 496

Citing Cases

Yuppie Puppy Prods. v. Street Smart

Moreover, the facts plainly warrant intervention under both CPLR 1012 (a) (2) and (3). The resulting judgment…

Jeffer v. Jeffer

Whether or not any of the claims of the intervenors is barred by a statute of limitations is another matter (…