PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION v. BH LLC (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, nonparty BH Urban Group, LLC, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Timothy J. Dufficy, J.), entered September 18, 2023.  The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of the motion of nonparty BH Urban Group, LLC, which was for leave to intervene in the action.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In March 2016, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, commenced the instant action to foreclose a mortgage, and thereafter, the Supreme Court issued an order and judgment of foreclosure and sale entered December 12, 2019.

Additional facts and procedural history of this case are recited in this Court's decision and order on a related appeal (see PHH Mtge. Corp. v. Ruth, ––– AD3d –––– [Appellate Division Docket No. 2024–06427;  decided herewith] ).  On July 21, 2023, nonparty BH Urban Group, LLC (hereinafter BH), moved, inter alia, for leave to intervene in the action.  In an order entered September 18, 2023, the Supreme Court, among other things, denied BH's motion.  BH appeals.

“A motion seeking leave to intervene, whether made under CPLR 1012 or 1013, must include the proposed intervenor's proposed complaint or answer” (New Hope Missionary Baptist Church, Inc. v 466 Lafayette Ltd., 169 AD3d 811, 812, citing CPLR 1014).  Here, BH failed to include a proposed complaint or answer with its motion for leave to intervene, thereby failing to comply with CPLR 1014.  A court has no power to grant leave to intervene where the proposed intervenor failed to include a proposed pleading setting forth the claim or defense for which intervention is sought (see Landa v. Poloncarz, 215 AD3d 739, 741;  New Hope Missionary Baptist Church, Inc. v 466 Lafayette Ltd., 169 AD3d at 812).  Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of BH's motion which was for leave to intervene in the action.

LASALLE, P.J., VOUTSINAS, LOVE and HOM, JJ., concur.