HSBC Bank USA. v. Larosa

• Decision Date: 01 April 2011
• Docket Number: LT-003074-10
• Citation: 2011 NY Slip Op 50495
• Parties: HSBC Bank USA, AS TRUSTEE IN TRUST FOR CITIGROUP MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, INC ASSET BACKED PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-SHL1, Petitioner(s) v. Lori B. Larosa, JOHN R. LAROSA, JOHN J. LAROSA, "JOHN DOE" and CHRISTINA LAROSA, Respondent(s)
• Court: New York District Court

2011 NY Slip Op 50495

HSBC Bank USA, AS TRUSTEE IN TRUST FOR CITIGROUP MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST,
INC ASSET BACKED PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES,
SERIES 2005-SHL1, Petitioner(s)
v.
Lori B. Larosa, JOHN R. LAROSA, JOHN J. LAROSA,
"JOHN DOE" and CHRISTINA LAROSA, Respondent(s)

LT-003074-10

District Court Of Nassau County Of The State Of New York
First District

Decided on April 1, 2011

Steven J. Baum, P.C., Attorneys for Petitioner; Nassau/Suffolk Law Services, Committee, Inc., Attorney for Respondent.

Scott Fairgrieve, J.

The following named papers numbered 1 to 6 submitted on this motion on February 2, 2011

Papers ............................................. Numbered

Notice of Motion and Supporting Documents4Order to Show Cause and Supporting Documents ............... 1

Opposition to Motion ............... 2, 5

Reply Papers to Motion ............... 3, 6

The pro se respondent moved for an order staying the warrant of eviction and dismissing the petition. The petitioner submits an affirmation in opposition. The respondent, via Nassau Suffolk Law Services Committee, Inc., submitted a reply affirmation. Thereafter, the respondent by Nassau Suffolk Law Services Committee, Inc., moved for permission to conduct discovery. The petitioner opposed the respondent's motion. The respondent submits a reply affirmation.

Page 2

This is a holdover summary proceeding stemming from a foreclosure, in which the petitioner and the respondent entered into a stipulation, whereby the parties agreed that the petitioner would be awarded a judgment of possession with a warrant of eviction, stayed until July 31, 2010. A warrant of eviction was thereafter issued.

The respondent, acting pro se, signed the stipulation of settlement.

As a general rule, stipulations will not be set aside absent a showing of good cause. Parties who sign a stipulation will ordinarily be bound by its terms absent showing of good cause such as fraud, collusion, mistake, accident, or some other wrongful act (see In the Matter of the Estate of Truiger, 29 NY2d 143 [1971]). It is not only public policy, but the policy of the Court to encourage agreements of settlement and compromise. The Court is mindful that to set aside final settlements of dispute which were entered into voluntarily, in open court, and clearly understood by all the parties involved would open the floodgate of potential abuse and endless litigation (see Seventy-Second Street Properties, Inc. v. Woods, 67 Misc 2d 539 [1971]...