Tenant, as limited by her brief, appeals from those portions of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Laurie Marin, J.), dated May 12, 2015, which denied her motion to vacate stipulations of settlement, for leave to interpose an amended answer and to conduct discovery in a nonpayment summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Laurie Marin, J.), dated May 12, 2015, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs, for the reasons stated by Laurie Marin, J. at Civil Court.

Civil Court properly denied tenant's motion to vacate the so-ordered stipulations settling the underlying nonpayment summary proceeding. No persuasive showing was made that the stipulations were tainted by mistake, fraud, or any other basis for voiding a contract (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]), or that it would be inequitable to hold the parties to their bargain (see Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143, 149—150 [1971]). Nor has tenant shown that she has a potential rent overcharge claim (cf. Striver 140 v Cruz, 1 Misc 3d 29 [2003]). Indeed, tenant was aware, as far back as December 2011, prior to execution of the three stipulations now sought to be vacated, that landlord claimed an individual apartment improvement rent increase of $317.78, but tenant failed to submit any proof, or, indeed, make any argument that landlord was not entitled to such increase (cf. 2701 Grand Assocs., LLC v Morel, — Misc 3d &mdash, 2016 NY Slip Op 50163[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016] [first and only stipulation of settlement properly vacated where the unrepresented tenant advanced a potentially meritorious overcharge claim, based upon a one-year rent increase of 88%, and immediately sought vacatur upon learning of the increase from a City agency]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.