Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Oymin Chin, J.), dated June 10, 2010. The order denied tenant's motion to stay the execution of a warrant of eviction.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this residential nonpayment proceeding, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement dated February 26, 2010 wherein they agreed that tenant owed landlord $2,440.50 through February 2010; that the warrant of eviction would be stayed on condition tenant pay landlord the total sum of $2,440.50 by April 30, 2010; that any monies received would first be applied to the current monthly rent; and that landlord would repair several conditions which existed in the apartment within 30 days of the date of the stipulation. Thereafter, by order to show cause returnable June 10, 2010, tenant moved to stay execution of the warrant. The Civil Court denied tenant's motion, finding that tenant owed landlord $3,411 in rent through June 2010 and that "tenant states that all repairs in the 2/26/10 stip have been corrected."

Enforcement of a stipulation remains subject to the supervision of the courts (see Malvin v Schwartz, 65 AD2d 769 [1978], affd 48 NY2d 693 [1979]), and courts may relieve a party from the consequences of strict enforcement of a stipulation when it would be unjust or inequitable, or would permit the other party to gain an unconscionable advantage (see e.g. Weitz v Murphy, 241 AD2d 547 [1997]; Bank of NY v Forlini, 220 AD2d 377 [1995]; Hyman Embroidery Works v Action House, 89 AD2d 515 [1982]). Such relief is appropriate where a party has substantially complied with the stipulation (see e.g. J & H Mgt. Corp. v W.W.R.S Automotive Inc., 7 Misc 3d 134[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50742[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005]; AMA Realty LLC v Farfan, 4 Misc 3d 131[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50702[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]). Where, however, enforcement of the stipulation is not unjust under the circumstances, the stipulation must be enforced according to its terms if a party has failed to substantially comply therewith (see Chelsea 19 Assoc. v James, 67 AD3d 601 [2009]; Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v Rubinstein, 26 AD3d 219 [2006]).

As tenant did not substantially comply with her obligations under the stipulation, the Civil Court properly denied her motion. Accordingly, the order is affirmed. [*2]

Weston, J.P., Pesce and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 08, 2011