125 Court St., LLC v. Nicholson

• Decision Date: 13 June 2014
• Docket Number: No. 2012–1856 K C.,2012–1856 K C.
• Citation: 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 50973,993 N.Y.S.2d 645,44 Misc.3d 128
• Parties: 125 COURT STREET, LLC, Respondent, v. Yolande NICHOLSON, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

44 Misc.3d 128

993 N.Y.S.2d 645

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 50973

125 COURT STREET, LLC, Respondent,

v.Yolande NICHOLSON, Appellant.

No. 2012–1856 K C.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 2, 11 & 13 Judicial Dist.

June 13, 2014

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Present: PESCE, P.J., SOLOMON and ELLIOT, JJ.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Anthony J. Fiorella, Jr., J.), entered May 20, 2011. The order denied tenant's motion to vacate two stipulations of settlement in a holdover summary proceeding.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this holdover summary proceeding based upon tenant's alleged failure to sign a renewal lease for her rent-stabilized apartment (Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2524.3[f] ), tenant, while represented by counsel, entered into a so-ordered stipulation on June 10, 2010 pursuant to which she agreed, among other things, to waive her affirmative defenses, and that she owed $22,423.21 in arrears through June 30, 2010. Landlord agreed, among other things, to accept $12,891.03 in satisfaction of the amount owed, provided that tenant vacated the apartment by September 30, 2010 and otherwise complied with the terms of the stipulation. Nearly one month after entering into the stipulation, tenant moved to vacate the stipulation, contending that the “of counsel” attorney who had appeared for her and had entered into the stipulation had agreed to terms that she had not authorized. However, tenant ultimately withdrew that motion and entered into a second so-ordered stipulation, which modified the first stipulation by, among other things, reducing to $12,000 the sum landlord would accept in satisfaction of the arrears. At the beginning of September, tenant moved to vacate both stipulations. The Civil Court denied her motion, and tenant appeals.

It is well settled that stipulations of settlement are judicially favored and will not easily be set aside ( see Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224 [1984]; Matter of Frutiger, 29 N.Y.2d 143 [1971] ). While stipulations of settlements may be vacated on grounds sufficient to set aside a contract, such as fraud, mistake, collusion or accident ( see Nash v. Yablon–Nash, 61 AD3d 832 [2009] ), a party should not be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation, particularly one that has been so-ordered by the court, absent a sufficient or compelling showing of one of these grounds ( see Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC v. Williams, 38 Misc.3d...