Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fifth District (James P. Flanagan, J.), dated November 13, 2006. The order denied a motion by tenant to vacate a final judgment awarding landlord possession and the sum of $3,675.

Order modified by providing that the denial of tenant's motion is without prejudice to an application by tenant to have the judgment marked partially satisfied; as so modified, affirmed without costs.

In this nonpayment proceeding, tenant appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate a final judgment entered pursuant to the terms of a stipulation. The stipulation also provided that execution of the warrant would be stayed for tenant to make payments totaling $3,675 by September 29, 2006, in addition to the payment of September rent by September 5, 2006. At a hearing on tenant's motion, tenant testified
that he paid September rent by September 10, 2006 and that, on October 5, 2006, he paid $3,000 of the $3,675 due under the stipulation to an authorized agent of landlord who had collected tenant's rent in the past. Landlord testified that he neither knew the person named by tenant nor authorized that person to collect rent on his behalf, and he asserted that he never received the $3,000. The District Court's order denying tenant's motion was based in part on its finding that landlord had not authorized the person to whom tenant claimed to have paid the $3,000 to collect rent, and that tenant knew or should have known that said person did not have such authority.

On appeal, tenant states that he has vacated the premises, and he does not ask to be restored to possession. Instead, tenant argues, in essence, that the stipulation and the money judgment entered pursuant thereto should be vacated.

Settlement stipulations are favored and will not be undone absent proof that the settlement was obtained by fraud, collusion, mistake, accident or other ground sufficient to invalidate a contract (see e.g. Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224 [1984]; Matter of [*2]Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143 [1971]; Bushwick Props. Mgt. Ltd. Partnership v Woods, 3 Misc 3d 135[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50472[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]). In the instant case, tenant failed to demonstrate that he entered into the stipulation based upon any such ground. Thus, the District Court properly found that there were no grounds to vacate the final judgment, which was entered pursuant to the stipulation (see CPLR 5015).

We note that the court erred in finding that tenant had not paid the September rent to landlord, as landlord admitted receiving such payment. However, since the money judgment did not include the September rent, such error was harmless. Contrary to tenant's contention, landlord's acceptance of the September rent, the payment of which was called for under the terms of the stipulation, does not provide a basis to vacate the final judgment.

Accordingly, we sustain the court's order denying tenant's motion to vacate the final judgment. However, we find that there was an insufficient basis in the record to allow the District Court to make a finding of fact as to whether tenant paid $3,000 to someone with apparent authority to collect the rent on behalf of landlord. Therefore, we modify the order to provide that it is without prejudice to an application by tenant to have the judgment marked partially satisfied upon a proper renewed showing that said payment was made to an authorized agent of landlord.

Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 7, 2008