Case ID: misc_17/html/0296-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      O’Dwyer, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Simon Uhlfelder et al., Respondents, v. Edward J. H. Tamsen, as Sheriff, Appellant.
    (City Court of New York, General Term,
    June, 1896.)
    Parties —. Intervention.
    ; .Where it clearly appears that the person applying-to intervene- has ' an interest-in the action, his right to be brought -in -is absolute, and the court cannot require him to give ¡security for costs as a condition.
    „ Appeal by Daniel Lenobiel and Jaco-b Cohen from so much- of an order granting the motion made by Lenobieh and Cohen for leave to intervene asi parties defendant' as requires them to furnish security for coste;
    Jacob'Barnett, for appellant.
    : Burritt & Stone .and Arthur Eurber, for respondents. •
   O’Dwyer, J.

The part of the order appealed from, should he reversed. •

The discretion referred to in Hart v. Kohn, 12 Misc. Rep. 648; 33 N. Y. Supp. 272, was a determination as to whether the party had .an interest. Here that question has been determined in favor of the applicant, and section 452 of the. Code of Civil Procedure is mandatory that, where the applicant has an interest, the court must direct him to be brought in. Rosenberg v. Salomon, 144 N. Y. 92.

That part of the order appealed from is reversed, with costs.

Van Wyck, Ch. J., concurs.

Portion of order appealed from reversed, with costs.