## Facts

- Mae Gambert Finn initially rented an apartment in February 1979 from the building’s prior owner.
- The building was later converted to a cooperative, requiring occupants to acquire a membership interest and sign an occupancy contract tied to cooperative ownership.
- Around November 1, 1982, Finn purchased one share in the cooperative for $41,000 (part cash, part financed) and signed an “Owner-Occupant Agreement/Proprietary Lease.”
- The proprietary lease contained lease-like terms (e.g., quiet possession and limits on occupancy and alterations) and also stated that enforcement—including for nonpayment—could proceed by summary dispossess in district court, with Finn’s consent to that forum.
- The agreement also reflected ownership characteristics inconsistent with a conventional tenancy, including reduced cooperative obligations typical of landlords, waivers of certain tenant protections, and member-type rights such as access to cooperative books.
- After a dispute and alleged default, the cooperative filed a summary dispossess action under N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1 in the county district court.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the cooperative appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a cooperative housing corporation’s relationship with a shareholder-occupant under a proprietary lease constitutes a “landlord-tenant” relationship within N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1, permitting summary dispossess relief in county district court.
2. Whether contractual language consenting to summary dispossess proceedings can create subject-matter jurisdiction if the statutory scheme does not otherwise apply.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed dismissal of the summary dispossess complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
- The court held the cooperative/shareholder-occupant relationship is not the landlord-tenant relationship contemplated by N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1.
- The court held parties cannot, by agreement, expand a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to authorize a statutory summary dispossess remedy outside the statute’s scope.
- The cooperative was left to pursue non-summary remedies in ordinary civil litigation.

## Legal Principles

- Summary dispossess is a statutory, limited remedy confined to relationships and grounds within the landlord-tenant framework specified by N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1.
- A cooperative resident holds a hybrid status—ownership interest (membership/shareholding) plus a contractual right to occupy a unit—that differs materially from a traditional leasehold tenancy.
- Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred or enlarged by private contract; consent provisions and contractual labels do not make the statutory summary dispossess procedure available when the statute does not apply.
- Courts evaluate the substance of the cooperative relationship, including ownership-type rights and obligations, rather than relying solely on lease-like provisions in the proprietary lease.

## Conclusion

The court held that a cooperative cannot use New Jersey’s summary dispossess statute to evict a shareholder-occupant under a proprietary lease because the relationship is not a conventional landlord-tenant tenancy, and contractual consent cannot supply missing statutory subject-matter jurisdiction.


Plaza Rd. Coop., Inc. v. Finn, 201 N.J. Super. 174, 492 A.2d 1072 (App. Div. 1985)