From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Rapoport

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 17, 2012
91 A.D.3d 509 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-01-17

In re Daniel Z. RAPOPORT, et al., Executors of the Estate of Boris Lurie, Deceased.American Friends of New Communities in Israel Inc., et al., Proposed Intervenors–Appellants,Richard Nadelman, et al., Petitioners–Respondents,Boris Lurie Art Foundation, Respondent–Respondent,Elizabeth Goodman, Respondent.

Wimpfheimer & Wimpfheimer, New York (Michael C. Wimpfheimer of counsel), for appellants. Marino & Chambers, P.C., White Plains (Frank P. Marino of counsel), for Richard Nadelman and Daniel Rapoport, respondents.


Wimpfheimer & Wimpfheimer, New York (Michael C. Wimpfheimer of counsel), for appellants. Marino & Chambers, P.C., White Plains (Frank P. Marino of counsel), for Richard Nadelman and Daniel Rapoport, respondents. DLA Piper US, LLP, New York (Kiran N. Gore of counsel), for Boris Lurie Art Foundation, respondent.Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Ann P. Zybert of counsel), for Attorney General, respondent.TOM, J.P., CATTERSON, DeGRASSE, RICHTER, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ.

Order, Surrogate's Court, New York County (Nora Anderson, S.), entered May 14, 2010, which denied the proposed intervenors' motion to intervene, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from decree, same court and Surrogate, entered on or about May 11, 2010, which reformed Articles Second and Third of the testator's will dated December 28, 2005, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The Surrogate properly denied the proposed intervenors' request to intervene in the reformation proceeding regarding the testator's will. The proposed intervenors are not named in the will—a fact that they concede—and cannot fulfill the requirement under CPLR 1012 that the judgment may adversely affect their interests ( see Matter of Vaughn, 267 A.D.2d 763, 763–64, 700 N.Y.S.2d 271 [1999]; Matter of Flemm, 85 Misc.2d 855, 857, 381 N.Y.S.2d 573 [1975] ). Indeed, the proposed intervenors base their argument in favor of intervention on the occurrence of a contingent event that might or might not occur at an indeterminate time in the future. The distribution, if any, would rest in the executors' sole discretion. Thus, the proposed intervenors have no standing to intervene ( see Matter of May, 213 A.D.2d 838, 839, 623 N.Y.S.2d 650 [1995], lv. dismissed 85 N.Y.2d 1032, 631 N.Y.S.2d 290, 655 N.E.2d 403 [1995] ).

The proposed intervenors' appeal from the reformation decree is improper because they were properly denied leave to intervene, and the appeal therefore must be dismissed.


Summaries of

In re Rapoport

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 17, 2012
91 A.D.3d 509 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

In re Rapoport

Case Details

Full title:In re Daniel Z. RAPOPORT, et al., Executors of the Estate of Boris Lurie…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Jan 17, 2012

Citations

91 A.D.3d 509 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
937 N.Y.S.2d 27
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 252

Citing Cases

In re Will of Mestman

The same testamentary theme is evident in each of those documents, as the decedent specifically disinherits…

In re Rosenthal

This status is conferred upon the Attorney General even if, as here, his position does not necessarily…