Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia ATLANTA,__________________ January 09, 2013 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order: A13D0164. VIJAY K. VIG v. VIDY ASHANKAR RANGASWAMI.

This case began as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court. Following an adverse ruling, Defendant Vijay K. Vig appealed the magistrate court’s decision to the state court. After a jury trial, the court entered judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $1,400 and awarded $4,000 in attorney fees to the plaintiff. Vig filed a motion for reconsideration, a motion for new trial, and a motion for sanctions and stay of proceedings, in which he alleged that the plaintiff had filed a summons of garnishment against him. In an order dated November 7, 2012, the trial court amended its judgment to decrease the rent owed to $1,000, and denied Vig’s motion for reconsideration, motion for new trial, and motion for sanctions and stay of proceedings. Vig filed this application for discretionary appeal on December 10, 2012. We lack jurisdiction.

Generally, an application for discretionary appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of the order sought to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). But the underlying subject matter of an appeal controls over the relief sought in determining the proper appellate procedure. See Rebich v. Miles, 264 Ga. 467, 467-468 (448 SE2d 192) (1994). The underlying subject matter of this discretionary application is a dispossessory judgment. OCGA § 44-7-56, which governs dispossessory actions, requires that an appeal from a dispossessory ruling be filed within seven days of the date judgment was entered.

Even if we were to construe this application as an appeal from the denial the motion for sanctions and to stay proceedings in the alleged garnishment action,1 Vig filed his application 33 days after entry of the most recent order he seeks to appeal.

The requirements of OCGA § 5-6-35 are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an application for appeal not made in compliance therewith. See Boyle v. State, 190 Ga. App. 734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989).

Because Vig’s application is untimely, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this application, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 01/09/2013 Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,__________________ I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

According to the court’s order, the plaintiff denied filing a garnishment action, and even though the court found no record of a garnishment filing in the action, the order did direct Vig’s bank to unfreeze his account if it had indeed frozen the account in connection with the case.