## Facts

- The Village of Spring Valley Housing Authority was a public agency created by special statute to construct and maintain public housing in the Village of Spring Valley for low-income residents and to address slum conditions.
- The Village of Spring Valley commenced a special proceeding under New York Public Housing Law § 57 seeking to dissolve the housing authority.
- A local NAACP chapter and four village residents (Joseph and Priscilla Burt; David R. and Thelma M. Wilson) moved for leave to intervene as parties respondent and to serve proposed answers.
- The individual applicants alleged they were low-income persons living in substandard housing in a slum area of the village and sought to intervene both for themselves and as representatives of other low-income persons in similar conditions.
- The housing authority consented to the intervention motions; the village opposed them.
- The Supreme Court, Rockland County denied the motions to intervene and to serve proposed answers (order entered October 15, 1969).
- The proposed intervenors appealed from so much of the order as denied intervention and leave to serve answers; the appeals were consolidated by stipulation.

## Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court erred in denying the NAACP chapter and low-income residents leave to intervene and serve proposed answers in the village’s proceeding to dissolve the housing authority, where their defenses raised common questions with the authority’s defenses under CPLR 1013.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division, Second Department reversed the order insofar as appealed from, on the facts and the law and in the exercise of its discretion, without costs.
- The court granted the motions for leave to intervene under CPLR 1013.
- The court directed that the intervenors’ proposed answers be served within 10 days after entry of the Appellate Division order.

## Legal Principles

- Under CPLR 1013, a court may permit intervention, in its discretion, when the proposed intervenor’s claim or defense and the main proceeding share common questions of law or fact, and intervention is appropriate in light of the circumstances.
- A showing of common questions is supported when the intervenor’s proposed answer overlaps with an existing party’s defenses concerning (among other matters) the agency’s statutory authority to continue, the scope of its housing mission for low-income residents, the implementation of intended housing programs, and the consequences of dissolution for affected residents.
- In reviewing a denial of permissive intervention, an appellate court may reverse where the record supports intervention and the discretionary balance favors participation by persons directly affected by the proceeding’s outcome.
- A housing authority’s consent to intervention is a relevant factor in the discretionary analysis, especially when the intervenors seek to participate on issues already central to the case.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division held that the NAACP chapter and low-income village residents should be allowed to intervene, as a matter of discretion under CPLR 1013, in the village’s Public Housing Law § 57 proceeding to dissolve the local housing authority because their proposed defenses shared common questions of law and fact with the authority’s defenses and the dissolution proceeding directly affected the interests of low-income residents the authority was created to serve.


Village of Spring Valley v. Village of Spring Valley Housing Authority, 33 A.D.2d 1037, 308 N.Y.S.2d 736 (1970)