Summary
holding defendant in foreclosure action waived his right to appeal by stipulation and therefore the appeal "must be dismissed"
Summary of this case from Navidea Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Capital Royalty Partners II, L.P.Opinion
2003-00892
Submitted May 5, 2003.
May 27, 2003.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Catterson, J.), entered January 27, 2003, which denied his motion, inter alia, to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale and to set aside a foreclosure sale.
Irwin Popkin, Shirley, N.Y., for appellant.
Darrell J. Sharpelletti, Westchampton Beach, N.Y., for plaintiff-respondent.
Berkman, Henoch, Peterson Peddy, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Lisa Confusione and Zhanna S. Kandel of counsel), for intervenor-respondent.
Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, with one bill of costs.
The defendant waived any defenses to this action and waived his right to appeal by stipulation that was so-ordered by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the appeal must be dismissed (see Ogu v. Faulkner, 265 A.D.2d 469; Matter of Department of Social Servs. v. Herbert R., 213 A.D.2d 636). Contrary to the defendant's contention, his claims on this appeal do not implicate the Supreme Court's subject matter jurisdiction as they do not go to the competence of the court to adjudicate the action. Therefore, they are claims which can be waived (see Lacks v. Lacks, 41 N.Y.2d 71).
ALTMAN, J.P., McGINITY, LUCIANO and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.