Narrative Opinion Summary
An order from the Supreme Court of New York County, dated September 15, 1995, denied individual movants' requests to be added as parties or to intervene in Action No. 2, and also denied a corporate movant's request to amend the plaintiffs' complaint in the same action. This decision was unanimously affirmed without costs. The court found the denial of intervention to be a proper exercise of discretion, citing precedents that established the proposed new causes of action were time-barred at the time of intervention. Additionally, even if the new claims were similar to the original ones, the appellants did not share a "united interest" with the original plaintiffs. The omission of the appellants as plaintiffs was deemed a deliberate strategic choice. Other arguments presented by the appellants were also deemed meritless. The ruling was concurred by Justices Sullivan, Ellerin, Nardelli, and Andrias.
Legal Issues Addressed
Amendment of Complaint in Civil Actionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The corporate movant's request to amend the plaintiffs' complaint was denied, as the court determined that the new claims did not establish a 'united interest' with the original plaintiffs.
Reasoning: Additionally, even if the new claims were similar to the original ones, the appellants did not share a 'united interest' with the original plaintiffs.
Intervention as a Party in Civil Litigationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied the individual movants' requests to intervene in Action No. 2, finding that the proposed new causes of action were already time-barred at the time of the requested intervention.
Reasoning: The court found the denial of intervention to be a proper exercise of discretion, citing precedents that established the proposed new causes of action were time-barred at the time of intervention.
Judicial Discretion and Meritless Argumentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court exercised its discretion to affirm the denial of the appellants' motions, finding other arguments presented by the appellants to be without merit.
Reasoning: Other arguments presented by the appellants were also deemed meritless.
Strategic Decisions in Legal Representationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The omission of the appellants as plaintiffs was considered a strategic choice, which the court found to be deliberate.
Reasoning: The omission of the appellants as plaintiffs was deemed a deliberate strategic choice.