Michael R. Curran, for undertenants-appellants. The Law Offices of Perry Ian Tischler, P.C. (Perry Ian Tischler), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Donna Marie Golia, J.), dated April 15, 2016. The order, in effect, denied a motion by Jose Santamaria Cortez and Tropicana Corp. to vacate a final judgment and warrant, dismiss the petition, and be restored to possession in a nonpayment summary proceeding.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

The parties to this commercial nonpayment proceeding entered into a so-ordered, two-attorney stipulation of settlement in December 2012, which provided, among other things, for the payment of arrears, that Jose Santamaria Cortez and Tropicana Corporation (appellants) be "substituted into the caption, as named parties for all purposes," and that they consented to the jurisdiction of the court and waived all defenses. The stipulation awarded landlord a final judgment of possession, with a warrant of eviction to issue forthwith, to be stayed pursuant to the terms of the stipulation. The stipulation also provided that, in the event of a default, landlord "may execute on Marshal's Notice" after a five-day grace period and after an additional five-day cure period.

By letter from his counsel dated December 4, 2015, landlord notified appellants of a default in rent and in the arrears payments for November and December 2015, and appellants were subsequently evicted. Thereafter, appellants moved to, among other things, vacate the final judgment and warrant and be restored to possession. Appellants appeal from an order of the Civil Court which denied their motion.

On appeal, appellants contend that the Civil Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction on the ground, among others, that named tenant Aires Mexicanos Restaurant Corp. had "abandon[ed] the premises," prior to the commencement of this proceeding, due to a temporary restraining order filed on December 9, 2010 in a Supreme Court action brought by appellant Jose [*2]Santamaria Cortez. This contention lacks merit.

"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)" (Saccheri v Cathedral Props. Corp., 43 Misc 3d 20, 25 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2014] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).

Appellants' contention that the stipulation of settlement contained a "scrivener's error" which caused a mathematical misunderstanding in the amount owed under the stipulation was not raised in their motion papers in the Civil Court, and, thus, is without support in the record.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ALIOTTA, JJ., concur.