| Leonard Saccheri, Jr. v Cathedral Props. Corp. |
| Motion No: 2005-01068 nc |
| Slip Opinion No: 2010 NY Slip Op 79948(U) |
| Decided on August 11, 2010 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department, Motion Decision |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the Official Reports. |
of the State of New York for the 9th & 10th judicial Districts
HON. KENNETH W. RUDOLPH, P.J.
HON. MELVYN TANENBAUM
HON. JOHN R. LACAVA, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION
| Leonard Saccheri, Jr., Respondent-Appellant, v Cathedral Properties Corp., Appellant-Respondent. Cathedral Court Associates, L.P., Nonparty-Movant. |
Motion by nonparty Cathedral Court Associates, L.P. to modify an order of this court dated June 18, 2007, which determined appeals and cross appeals from, inter alia, a final judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District, entered September 17, 2002. Cross motions by respondent-appellant and appellant-respondent for enlargements of time to file opposition to the motion.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and cross motions and the papers filed in opposition to the cross motion, it is,
ORDERED that the motion and cross motions are denied.
Contrary to movant's contention, neither this court nor the District Court was divested of subject matter jurisdiction by the sale of the cooperative shares to a third party.
"Subject matter jurisdiction concerns a court's competence to entertain a particular kind of application (see Matter of Fry v Village of Tarrytown, 89 NY2d 714, 718 [1997]; Lacks v Lacks, 41 NY2d 71, 75 [1976]; Thrasher v United States Liab. Ins. Co., 19 NY2d 159, 166 [1967]). A court's power to entertain a particular kind of application is conferred by constitution or statute alone (see Matter of Fry v Village of Tarrytown, 89 NY2d at 718)."
(Matter of H.M. v E.T., 65 AD3d 119, 123 [2009], revd on other grounds 14 NY3d 521 [2010]). By virtue of NY Const, art VI, §16, UDCA 204, and RPAPL 701 and 713, the District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over this unlawful entry and detainer proceeding. We note, in addition, that as the third-party purchaser has now been evicted, his joinder in this proceeding is not necessary.
RUDOLPH, P.J., taking no part.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk