Case Name: HART et al. v. KOHN et al.
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-04-09
Citations: 33 N.Y.S. 272
Docket Number: 
Parties: HART et al. v. KOHN et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 33
Pages: 272–273

Head Matter:
HART et al. v. KOHN et al.
(City Court of New York, General Term.
April 9, 1895.)
Parties—Intervention.
It is discretionary with the court to grant permission to a person to come in as a party to an action where it does not appear that such person has a right to be made a party.
Appeal from special term.
Action by William W. Hart and others against Arnold Kohn and others. From an order denying a motion to permit Michael E. Duffy, as receiver, to intervene, said Duffy appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before EHRLICH, C. J., and VAN WYCK and MCCARTHY, JJ.
Kohn, Ruch & Lippman, for appellant.
Arthur Furber, for respondents.

Opinion:
EHRLICH, C. J.
We think there is nothing in the papers which gave the receiver, Duffy, a right to come in as a party, and that it was for the court below, in the exercise of its discretion, to determine whether he should be given that permission. The court, after hearing argument pro and con, concluded that the action might proceed to a determination without the presence of the receiver, and therefore denied the application. We think there was no abuse of discretion. Dunlop v. Insurance Co., 74 N. Y. 145; Bank v. Farthing, 101 N. Y. 344, 4 N. E. 734; Rosenberg v. Salomon, 144 N. Y. 92, 38 N. E. 982.
The order appealed from must therefore be affirmed, with costs. All concur.