Case ID: misc2d_46/html/0849-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mohar Realty Company, Appellant, v. Herman Smith et al., Respondents.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
    June 9, 1965.
    
      Moses Krivis for appellant. Donald R. Maxwell for respondents.
   Per Curiam.

It was error to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter. The Suffolk County District Court has jurisdiction to entertain a summary proceeding to recover possession of property instituted by one claiming title through a tax deed. (Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, § 701, subd. 1; § 713, subd. 4; UDCA, §§ 201, 204.) The issue of title, raised as a defense, does not have the effect of divesting the court of jurisdiction. (Hoffman v. Hoffman, 212 App. Div. 531.)

The judgment should be unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered, with $30 costs to petitioner to abide the event.

Concur — McDonald, Schwartzwald and Croat, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.