Opinion
February 19, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.).
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as cross-appealed from, on the law, and the second, third and fourth decretal paragraphs thereof are vacated; and it is further,
Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.
The defendant claims that the court erred in directing the sale of one of two properties the parties hold as tenants by the entirety, since he only agreed to sell that property if both were sold. We agree.
It is settled that courts have no authority to order the sale of property held by tenants by the entirety without the parties' consent, unless the legal relationship of husband and wife is first altered through judicial intervention (see, Kahn v Kahn, 43 N.Y.2d 203, 210; Harrilal v Harrilal, 128 A.D.2d 502; Tsakis v Tsakis, 110 A.D.2d 763; Brady v Brady, 101 A.D.2d 797, affd 64 N.Y.2d 339). Because the parties did not agree to sell the subject properties, both of which are held as tenancies by the entirety, the court lacked authority to order the sale of either.
In addition, we note that, because the plaintiffs son has now reached the age of majority, her appeal concerning visitation issues is dismissed as academic (see, Domestic Relations Law § 2; Pizzuto v Pizzuto, 162 A.D.2d 443; Leff v Leff, 144 A.D.2d 544; Anastasia v Anastasia, 100 A.D.2d 740; Adamec v Adamec, 81 A.D.2d 600). Brown, J.P., Eiber, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.