Tenant, as limited by his briefs, appeals from that portion of an order of the Civil Court, New York County, entered January 16, 2004 (Anthony J. Fiorella, Jr., J.) which denied his motion to vacate a "so-ordered" stipulation settling the underlying nonpayment summary proceeding.

PER CURIAM:

Order entered January 16, 2004 (Anthony J. Fiorella, Jr., J.) affirmed, without costs.

The motion court, while granting tenant a further opportunity to comply with the payment terms of the parties' so-ordered settlement stipulation, appropriately declined to ignore the tenant's demonstrated payment default or to set aside the stipulation and restore the matter for trial on issues previously resolved. There is no showing that the stipulation — which, as tenant put it below, "was hammered out at long length" — was entered into inadvisedly, or that it would be inequitable to hold the parties to its unambiguous terms (see Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143, 150 [1971]). We note that the conditional stay issued to tenant pending disposition of the appeal [*2]was vacated on landlord's motion by our order of July 16, 2004,
and that tenant was subsequently evicted.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
I concur
Decision Date: January 12, 2005