Opinion
July 14, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.).
Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof which denied that branch of the appellants' motion which was for leave to intervene in the proceeding, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the petitioner-respondent.
The court has discretion to allow intervention in a CPLR article 78 proceeding at any time, provided the movant is an interested person ( see, Matter of Elinor Homes Co. v. St. Lawrence, 113 A.D.2d 25). Contrary to the petitioner-respondent's contention, the appellants herein were interested parties and therefore, their motion to intervene should have been granted. However, the record sufficiently establishes that the use of the subject premises for a nightclub constituted a preexisting nonconforming use ( see, Matter of Doyle Doyle v. Rush, 241 A.D.2d 493 [decided herewith]) and therefore the petition was properly granted.
The appellants' remaining contentions lack merit.
Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.