Opinion
November 23, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint. The claims asserted in the complaint were premised upon the purported interest of the plaintiff Israel Weinstock in two parcels of real property. However, while this action was pending, judgments were rendered in separate actions to the effect that Weinstock has no interest in these properties ( see, Weinstock v. Handler, 244 A.D.2d 273; Walker v. Weinstock, 173 Misc.2d 1, affd [case No. 44] 255 A.D.2d 508 [decided herewith]). Consequently, the plaintiffs have no standing to maintain this action.
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.