332 EDC Realty Corp. v Barlow (2014 NY Slip Op 50520(U))

332 EDC Realty Corp. v Barlow

2014 NY Slip Op 50520(U) [43 Misc 3d 1207(A)]

Decided on April 4, 2014

Civil Court Of The City Of New York, Kings County

Avery, J.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

In this non payment proceeding, respondent seeks to vacate his default, pay the petitioner the rental arrears and dismiss this proceeding.

Petitioner opposes the application stating that in a prior stipulation, respondent agreed to vacate the apartment by a date certain, and petitioner agreed to waive a significant amount of money. Counsel for petitioner argues that there is no basis to vacate the stipulation and his his client is entitled to be restored to possession.

Mr. Barlow states that after discussing the matter with his family, he wants to pay the arrears and stay in the apartment. Counsel for the petitioner states that $13,251.00 is due and Mr Barlow comes to court with bank checks in the amount of $13,250.00, and a single dollar bill.

Subsequently, this court issued an order, which required respondent to pay a certain amount of money by a date certain or vacate, which petitioner argues, respondent fails to demonstrate compliance with.

"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 Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143 [1971]). Nevertheless, enforcement of a stipulation remains subject to the supervision of the court (see Malvin v Schwartz, 65 AD2d 769 [1978], affd 48 NY2d 693 [1979]), and which always retains the power to vacate a warrant of eviction prior to its execution [*2]for good cause shown'" (Harvey 1390 LLC v Bodenheim, 96 AD3d 664, 664 [2012], quoting RPAPL §749 [3]). Brigham Park Co-Operative Apts., Sec No.3, Inc. v Rock. 42 Misc 3d 141(A) App Term 2nd Dept 2nd & 11th Jud Dist [2014]).

In the interest of justice, over petitioner's strenuous objection, counsel for the petitioner is ordered to accept the checks and the single dollar bill for his client.