Respondents Duke Stevens and Lauren Stevens appeal from an order of the Civil Court, New York County, dated December 12, 2003 (Laurie L. Lau, J.) denying their motion which, in effect, sought to vacate a "so-ordered" stipulation settling the underlying licensee holdover proceeding.

PER CURIAM:

Order dated December 12, 2003 (Laurie L. Lau, J.) affirmed, with $10 costs.

Reasonably construing the October 2, 2003 stipulation settling the underlying licensee holdover proceeding in accordance with contract principles and the parties' intent (see Sharp v Stavisky, 221 AD2d 216 [1995], lv dismissed 87 NY2d 968 [1996]), Civil Court appropriately concluded that respondents-appellants were not entitled to the return of the $10,000 use and occupancy payment previously tendered to petitioner pursuant to the stipulation's provisions. Any concerns raised by appellants over the habitability of the apartment premises during the stay period contemplated by the stipulation (Oct. 2003 — Dec. 2003) do not warrant a [*2]grant of the requested relief since, as the motion court recognized, the stipulation's terms contain no indication that the use and occupancy payment was intended to be earmarked solely for the future stay period, as opposed to the prior holdover period dating back to March 1, 2003 during which appellants lived rent-free.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: January 07, 2005