## Facts

- The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. (A&P) was a contract vendee seeking to redevelop a Montauk Highway parcel in East Hampton, New York, into a large supermarket.
- The Town enacted Local Law No. 17 of 1996 (“Superstore Law”), amending the zoning code to restrict very large retail stores outside the Central Business zone, including a 25,000-square-foot gross floor area cap for supermarkets and parking-location requirements.
- Before the Superstore Law, the parcel was in a Neighborhood Business district, had long hosted permitted retail uses, and the zoning code did not impose retail floor-area caps beyond lot coverage and parking rules.
- A&P applied for site plan approval for a supermarket exceeding the Superstore Law’s 25,000-square-foot limit; the parties disputed exact measurements but agreed the proposal violated the cap under either characterization.
- A&P sued the Town and Town Board in federal court seeking declaratory and constitutional relief (including due process, equal protection, § 1983, and commerce-related claims) challenging the Superstore Law.
- Group for the South Fork, Inc., an environmental and community organization with some members living near the proposed store, moved to intervene as a defendant to help defend the Superstore Law.

## Issues

1. Whether the Group was entitled to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), including whether its interests would be impaired and were inadequately represented by the Town.
2. Whether the court should allow permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(2) because the Group’s defenses shared common questions with the main action and would not cause undue delay or prejudice.

## Decision

- The court denied intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2).
- The court denied permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(2).
- The denial was without prejudice, granting leave to renew the motion at a later stage of the litigation.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 24(a)(2) requires a timely motion, a cognizable interest relating to the action, a risk that the action’s disposition may impair that interest, and inadequate representation by existing parties.
- When a governmental entity is defending the validity of its own ordinance and the proposed intervenor seeks the same outcome, courts generally presume the government adequately represents the intervenor’s interests; a desire to add arguments or emphasis is insufficient to show inadequacy.
- Under Rule 24(b)(2), even where common questions exist, permissive intervention is discretionary and may be denied to avoid duplicative briefing, added complexity, and delay or prejudice to the original parties.

## Conclusion

The court refused to add an advocacy group as a party-defendant in a challenge to a municipal zoning amendment because the Town’s defense of its own law presumptively protected the same interests, and additional party participation would likely duplicate efforts and slow the case, though the group could seek intervention later if circumstances changed.


Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Town of E. Hampton, 178 F.R.D. 39 (E.D.N.Y. 1998)