Legal Opinion
Vacco v. Herrera
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided February 23, 1998PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
In a civil forfeiture action pursuant to CPLR article 13-A, the proposed intervening defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated February 5, 1997, which denied their motion to intervene.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The appellants failed to demonstrate that they had any real interest in the property which is the subject of this civil forfeiture action (see, Osman v Sternberg, 168 AD2d 490). In addition, they did not provide a sufficient explanation for not filing their motion to intervene in a timely manner (see, CPLR 1012,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Rectory Realty Associates v. Town of SouthamptonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- Osman v. SternbergAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
3Cited by15 opinions
- T & V Construction Corp. v. PrattiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. EdelsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- NYCTL 1996-1 Trust v. KingAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- Sieger v. SiegerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Nassau Point Property Owners Ass'n v. TiradoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.