On July 26, 2024, the Fourth Department issued a decision in Resetarits Constr. Corp. v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 2024 NY Slip Op. 04019, holding that a motion to intervene was not untimely because the existing litigants were not prejudiced, explaining:
Norfolk also contends that the court abused its discretion in granting PIIC’s motion to intervene because that motion was untimely. We reject that contention. A timely motion for leave to intervene should be granted where the intervenor has a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings. In examining the timeliness of a motion to intervene, courts do not engage in mere mechanical measurements of time, but consider whether the delay in seeking intervention would cause a delay in resolution of the action or otherwise prejudice a party. We conclude that the court properly granted PIIC’s motion inasmuch as PIIC’s intervention will not delay resolution of the action and Norfolk will not suffer prejudice.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).