In Lacks v. Lacks (41 NY2d 71 [1976]) in the context of considering when a motion to vacate for lack of "subject matter jurisdiction" under CPLR 5015 (a) (4) may lie, he noted that "[j]urisdiction is a word of elastic, diverse, and disparate meanings." (Supra, at 74.) As a result, it is "grossly oversimple" to state and apply blindly the "blackletter law that a judgment rendered without subject matter is void, and that the defect may be raised at any time and may not be waived" (supra, at 75). Rather, the authorization found in CPLR 5015 to vacate for lack of subject matter jurisdiction may only be invoked "to preserve objections so fundamental to the power of adjudication of a court that they survive even a final judgment or order." (Supra, at 74-75 .) Put another way, there is a "clear distinction between a court's competence to entertain an action and its power to render a judgment on the merits ... Absence of competence to entertain an action deprives the court of 'subject matter jurisdiction'; absence of power to reach the merits does not." (Supra, at 75.) Accordingly, even a serious error of law in determining whether a substantive cause of action exists does not serve to deprive a court of subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a case. (Supra, at 77.)