[*1]
Ralu Corp. v Parada
2015 NY Slip Op 50195(U) [46 Misc 3d 144(A)]
Decided on February 23, 2015
Appellate Term, Second Department
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on February 23, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ELLIOT, JJ.
2013-1021 Q C

Ralu Corporation and RALUCA MURARASU, Appellants, -

against

Francisco Parada, Respondent.


Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Gilbert Badillo, J.), entered January 14, 2013. The order denied landlords' motion to restore the proceeding to the calendar, and for the entry of a final judgment of possession and the issuance of a warrant of eviction.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this nuisance holdover proceeding, the parties entered into a so-ordered probationary stipulation pursuant to which the proceeding would be discontinued if tenant adhered to its terms during the probationary period. It was agreed that, if tenant were to engage in specified behaviors, landlords could move to restore the proceeding to the calendar and seek a final judgment of possession and a warrant of eviction. After landlords made such a motion and a hearing was held, the Civil Court denied the motion, finding that the single breach of the probationary stipulation that landlords had alleged had been refuted by tenant and that the testimony did not support terminating the long-term rent-regulated tenancy at this juncture.

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]). Here, there is no basis in the record to disturb the Civil Court's denial of landlords' motion.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Elliot, JJ., concur.


Decision Date: February 23, 2015