Appeal from a final judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fifth District (James P. Flanagan, J.), dated October 31, 2007. The final judgment, entered pursuant to a stipulation of settlement, awarded landlord possession in a holdover summary proceeding.

Final judgment affirmed without costs.

In this commercial holdover proceeding brought to recover premises described as 3 Beech Street in Islip, New York, landlord and tenants agreed, in a stipulation of settlement dated August 9, 2006, that a final judgment would be entered awarding
landlord possession and the sum of $31,416.32, with a warrant to be issued but with execution thereof stayed until Octobe
r 31, 2006 to allow tenants to vacate.

Prior to the commencement of this holdover proceeding, landlord brought an action against tenants and others in the United States District Court, Central District of California, regarding a business dispute between the parties. On September 20, 2006, the parties in that litigation entered into a written settlement agreement, which was signed by the parties' principals and attorneys, and witnessed by a judge. The September 20, 2006 agreement provides, in part:
"1. Said full settlement amount of $1,750,000, which shall include but not necessarily limited to, all outstanding debts and liabilities between the parties and disputed stock ownership in SMC [Selectron Management Corporation], shall be paid as follows: [*2]

. . .
c. The sum of $1,500,000 upon the close of title for the sale of the property located at 3 Beech Street, Islip, New York (hereafter subject property' and see further details below) . . .
2. Plaintiff shall convey all right, title and interest in the subject property to defendant SIO [Selectron International Optronics] pursuant to a purchase agreement . . .
c. Pending close of title, plaintiff shall stay (or cease) any eviction proceedings presently pending, but solely on condition that the remaining terms and conditions set forth herein remain ongoing and not stalled or in default . . ."

After the parties entered into the September 20, 2006 agreement, a dispute apparently arose as to the exact property to be conveyed. Landlord asserted that 3 Beech Street included only that parcel of land on which tenants' headquarters was located (parcel one), while tenants claimed that 3 Beech Street also included an adjacent vacant lot (parcel two).

Tenants moved in the federal litigation to enforce the settlement agreement. By order dated January 4, 2007, the United States District Court, Central District of California, denied the motion on the ground that there was no agreement between the parties as to the meaning of the term "3 Beech Street." At some point in the federal litigation, tenants withdrew any claim to parcel two, the vacant lot, and moved again to enforce the settlement agreement as to parcel one only. That motion was denied. (By order dated April 21, 2009, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's order [Ham v Selectron Intl. Optronics, LLC, 2009 WL 1059909 (9th Cir 2009)]).

On March 21, 2007, landlord submitted an affidavit of noncompliance in the instant holdover proceeding based upon tenants' failure to vacate the premises by
October 31, 2006 as required by the August 9, 2006 stipulation. Landlord sought, among other things, a final judgment of possession of the premises described in the petition and issuance of a warrant of eviction.

Tenants opposed landlord's application, arguing, in essence, that the August 9, 2006 stipulation had been superseded by the September 20, 2006 settlement agreement. Therefore, tenants argued, the August 9, 2006 stipulation should not be enforced. Tenants also contended that their business included manufacture of sensitive equipment for the United States armed forces, that they maintained substantial complex manufacturing equipment at the subject premises, and that they would sustain a significant economic loss if evicted without sufficient notice.

A final judgment of possession was entered in favor of landlord and a warrant of eviction was issued on October 31, 2007. Tenants now appeal from the final judgment. [*3]

In the September 20, 2006 agreement, the parties agreed to stay or cease any eviction proceedings "solely on condition that the remaining terms and conditions set forth herein remain ongoing and not stalled or in default." While there is no evidence of default in the record, that agreement has clearly been stalled. As tenants set forth no basis, other than the September 20, 2006 agreement, to invalidate the August 9, 2006 stipulation, the August 9, 2006 stipulation was properly enforced and a final judgment was properly entered based upon that stipulation.

Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed.

Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 02, 2009