Opinion
December 2, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.).
The IAS Court should not have ever considered Firemen's motion since it is not a party to the underlying action and has never sought leave to intervene (see, Rozewicz v Ciminelli, 116 A.D.2d 990). Moreover, even assuming that Firemen's did have standing to seek to restrain plaintiff from executing on the account in question, we agree with the IAS Court that its motion was, in effect, one to reargue the prior order of January 22, 1992 specifically holding that the account is "subject to enforcement of plaintiff's judgment", and from which its time to appeal had expired, and thus its appeal would in any event be dismissible (Rivera v Cambridge Mut. Ins. Co., 136 A.D.2d 688).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.