| U.S. Bank N.A. v Bisono |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05962 [98 AD3d 608] |
| August 15, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for SG MortgageSecurities Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2006-FRE2, Respondent, v Marta Bisono etal., Defendants. Melina Fernandez et al., ProposedIntervenors-Appellants. |
—[*1] Hogan Lovells US, LLP, New York, N.Y. (David Dunn, Renee Garcia, and Jessica L.Ellsworth of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the proposed intervenors, Melina Fernandez and U.S.Bank, also known as U.S. Bank Home Mortgage, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court,Nassau County (Adams, J.), dated May 6, 2011, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR1012 for leave to intervene in the action, and thereafter, inter alia, to vacate a judgment offoreclosure of the same court entered July 14, 2008.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Intervention pursuant to either CPLR 1012 or 1013 requires a timely motion (seeCPLR 1012, 1013; JP MorganChase Bank, N.A. v Edelson, 90 AD3d 996, 996-997 [2011]; see also Siegel,NY Prac § 183 at 312 [4th ed]). Here, the proposed intervenors moved pursuant to CPLR1012 for leave to intervene in this action to foreclose a mortgage. The proposed intervenors'motion was made more than 3 1/2 years after the action was commenced and the notice ofpendency was filed, more than 2 1/2 years after the judgment of foreclosure was entered, and atleast one year after the proposed intervenor Melina Fernandez concededly had actual notice ofthe foreclosure action. In view of the proposed intervenors' undue delay in seeking leave tointervene, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion for that relief (see JP MorganChase Bank, N.A. v Edelson, 90 AD3d at 996-997; T & V Constr. Corp. v Pratti, 72 AD3d 1065, 1066 [2010];Vacco v Herrera, 247 AD2d 608, 608-609 [1998]; Rectory Realty Assoc. v Town ofSouthampton, 151 AD2d 737, 737-738 [1989]). Rivera, J.P., Eng, Lott and Miller, JJ.,concur.