CENTURY INDEMNITY COMPANY v. ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lori S. Sattler, J.), entered June 12, 2025, which denied proposed intervenors' motion to intervene, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Proposed intervenors are alleged victims of sexual abuse by defendants, each having already filed lawsuits to vindicate their claims as well as note of issue, but as of yet, have not obtained a judgment.  At the time of the alleged abuse, defendants held insurance policies with plaintiffs.  Proposed intervenors seek to intervene in this declaratory judgment action to protect their interests as they may be bound by the court's determination of coverage.

Supreme Court properly denied intervention because proposed intervenors have not yet secured judgments against defendants, as required by Insurance Law § 3420(b)(1), and thus, they lack a basis to intervene (see Clarendon Place Corp. v. Landmark Ins. Co., 182 A.D.2d 6, 10, 587 N.Y.S.2d 311 [1st Dept. 1992], lv dismissed 80 N.Y.2d 918, 589 N.Y.S.2d 303, 602 N.E.2d 1119 [1992] ).  Although CPLR 1012(a)(2) states that one may intervene as of right “when the representation of the person's interest by the parties is or may be inadequate and the person is or may be bound by the judgment,” Insurance Law § 3420(b)(1) provides that an action may be maintained by “any person who ․ has obtained a judgment against the insured” “to recover the amount of a judgment against the insured.”  Thus, the more specific provision of Insurance Law § 3420(b)(1) takes precedence over the broader joinder provision of CPLR 1012(a)(2) (see Strategic Risk Mgt. v. Federal Express Corp., 253 A.D.2d 167, 172, 686 N.Y.S.2d 35 [1st Dept. 1999] [“it is a commonplace of statutory construction that the specific governs the general”] [internal quotation marks omitted], lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 757, 703 N.Y.S.2d 74, 724 N.E.2d 770 [1999] ).

Supreme Court also providently exercised its discretion in denying intervention under CPLR 1013, which provides that “any person may be permitted to intervene in any action ․ when the person's claim or defense and the main action have a common question of law or fact” (CPLR 1013).  First, and as already stated, proposed intervenors do not have a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceeding as they have yet to obtain a judgment against defendants.  Second, although there are some common questions of fact given that proposed intervenors' underlying actions serve as part of the basis of this coverage dispute, the court reasonably concluded that this case concerns “whether [plaintiffs] can disclaim coverage,” i.e., the scope of the policies, while the proposed intervenors' cases are based on allegations of defendants' “negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of individuals who sexually abused the proposed intervenors.”  Third, “[i]ntervention [c]ould cause some delay because it would lead to duplicative discovery and motion practice” (Mavente v. Albany Med. Ctr. Hosp., 126 A.D.3d 1090, 1091, 6 N.Y.S.3d 158 [3d Dept. 2015], lv dismissed 25 N.Y.3d 1085, 12 N.Y.S.3d 24, 34 N.E.3d 53 [2015] ) as defendants are already seeking coverage.

We have considered proposed intervenors' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.