IN RE: Daniel Z. RAPOPORT (2012)

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 A.D.2d 763, 763–64, 700 N.Y.S.2d 271 [1999]; Matter of Flemm, 85 Misc.2d 855, 857, 381 N.Y.S.2d 573 [1975] ). Indeed, the proposed intervenors base their argument in favor of intervention on the occurrence of a contingent event that might or 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 A.D.2d 838, 839, 623 N.Y.S.2d 650 [1995], lv. dismissed 85 N.Y.2d 1032, 631 N.Y.S.2d 290, 655 N.E.2d 403 [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.