JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Phillips-Osuji , 991 N.Y.S.2d 895 ( 2014 )

JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Phillips-Osuji (2014 NY Slip Op 06057)

JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Phillips-Osuji

2014 NY Slip Op 06057

Decided on September 10, 2014

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on September 10, 2014SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAppellate Division, Second Judicial Department
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
L. PRISCILLA HALL
ROBERT J. MILLER
SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX, JJ.

2013-00438
(Index No. 9121/11)

[*1]JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., respondent,

v

Christine Phillips-Osuji, et al., defendant; Samuel Osuji, etc., nonparty-appellant.

Samuel Osuji, Hempstead, N.Y., nonparty-appellant pro se.

Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLC, New York, N.Y. (John M. Falzone and Scott W. Parker of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, nonparty Samuel Osuji appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), dated October 15, 2012, which denied his motion for leave to intervene as a defendant.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the proposed intervenor's motion for leave to intervene as a defendant. The proposed intervenor, the spouse of the defendant Christine Phillips-Osuji, was not, under the facts of this case, entitled to intervene as of right (see CPLR 1012; State Bank & Trust Co. v Calandro, 243 AD2d 705; Arbor Natl. Mtge. v Goldsmith, 154 Misc 2d 853 [Sup Ct Nassau County]). Moreover, the denial of leave to intervene by permission was a provident exercise of the Supreme Court's discretion (see CPLR 1013; Pappas v Pappas, 95 AD3d 1283).

The proposed intervenor's remaining contentions are not properly before this Court.

DILLON, J.P., HALL, MILLER and HINDS-RADIX, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court