Appeal by landlord from an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (M. Finkelstein, J.), entered December 2, 2003, granting tenant's motion to stay execution of a warrant of eviction.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

In this nonpayment summary proceeding, landlord and tenant entered into a stipulation of settlement that provided, inter alia, for tenant to be restored to possession of her apartment upon payment of the rent arrears, and for a subsequent one-year "probationary period" during which a warrant could issue "upon marshal's notice" if the rent were not paid by the 5th of each month. The stipulation further provided that "if tenant is receiving DSS [Department of Social Services] shelter payments bi-monthly, such payments (only - not [tenant's] share) will be due as and when paid in each month." No further cure periods were to be granted.

Repeated difficulties with the DSS payments resulted in several ensuing court appearances. On the last of these, the court stayed execution of the warrant of eviction
"a last time" for tenant to procure the DSS share of the rent and noted that the payment difficulties did not concern tenant's share of the rent. Landlord appeals, arguing that the court had abused its discretion in refusing to enforce the stipulation of settlement, in particular the no-cure provision, according to its terms.

While landlord correctly notes that stipulations of settlement are favored and in general will be enforced in accordance with their terms (see generally Hallock v State of New York, 64 [*2]NY2d 224 [1984]), landlord itself agreed in the present stipulation to accept a portion of the rent from a third party, DSS, which was not a party to the stipulation and whose payment or failure to pay was beyond tenant's control. While landlord on appeal attempts to ascribe all failure to make payment in accordance with the stipulation to tenant, the order appealed from notes that the arrears at issue were almost entirely attributed to DSS. The record indicates that tenant had substantially complied with the stipulation by paying her half of the rent.

As noted, the stipulation provided for a one-year probationary period. The enforcement of such a stipulation is subject to the supervision of the courts (see Malvin v Schwartz, 65 AD2d 769 [1978], affd 48 NY2d 693 [1979]). It was not an abuse of discretion for the court to supervise enforcement of the stipulation of settlement in order to avoid working a forfeiture of the tenancy, as the record indicates that tenant made consistent efforts to obtain payment of DSS's portion of the rent (see generally id.; George v Lucas, 2002 NY Slip Op 40320 [U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]).
Decision Date: July 07, 2004