Matter of Rapoport
2012 NY Slip Op 00252 [91 AD3d 509]
January 17, 2012
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, February 29, 2012

In the Matter of Daniel Z. Rapoport, et al., Executors of Boris Lurie, Deceased. American Friends of New Communities in Israel Inc. et al., Proposed Intervenors-Appellants; Richard Nadelman et al., Respondents, and Boris Lurie Art Foundation, Respondent, et al., Respondent.

[*1] 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.

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 AD2d 763, 763-764 [1999]; Matter of Flemm, 85 Misc 2d 855, 857 [1975]). Indeed, the proposed intervenors base their argument in favor of intervention on the occurrence of a contingent event that might or [*2]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 AD2d 838, 839 [1995], lv dismissed 85 NY2d 1032 [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. Concur—Tom, J.P., Catterson, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.