Recitation, as required by CPLR § 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of petitioner's motion to vacate the stipulation dated October 27, 2023, or in the alternative, to modify the stipulation, and respondent's pro se order to show cause;

Papers/Numbered

This nonpayment proceeding was filed in January 2023. Respondent Carmen Elena Barrios (hereinafter "respondent") filed a pro se answer. Subsequently, counsel appeared for respondent. The case was referred to this trial Part and the parties, through counsel, executed a [*2]stipulation of settlement dated October 27, 2023. This court so-ordered the stipulation. The stipulation provided that petitioner acknowledged receipt of $10,432.50, "representing all rental arrears owed through 10/31/23, with ck [check] #362, subject to collection." The stipulation also included access and repair dates, as well as an acknowledgment that the matter would be discontinued upon clearance of the check. Petitioner reserved the right to restore if the check bounced. Subsequent to the execution of the stipulation, petitioner made a motion to vacate the stipulation or to modify its terms, upon the representation that the rental breakdown relied upon by petitioner was incorrect and did not include $5,586.25 in rent that petitioner alleges was due at the time of the October 27, 2023 stipulation. Respondent submitted opposition papers through counsel and opposes the motion in its entirety. Subsequent to petitioner making its motion, respondent, pro se, filed an order to show cause that, in effect, attempted to oppose petitioner's motion. The court deemed the pro se order to show cause withdrawn since formal opposition papers had been filed on behalf of respondent through counsel. This Decision/Order hereby formalizes the withdrawal of the order to show cause.

Petitioner argues that the court should relieve petitioner from the October 27, 2023 stipulation, arguing that it would be inequitable to hold petitioner to the terms of the stipulation after discovery of the additional rents that were purportedly due when it was executed. Petitioner cites to Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143, 150 [1971], which held that a party may be relieved from a stipulation where it was entered "inadvertently, inadvisably or improvidently" such that it took the case "out of the due and ordinary course of the proceeding in the action, and in so doing may work to [the party's] prejudice." Respondent argues in opposition that petitioner's request is based on a unilateral mistake and that the circumstances here do not support vacatur of the stipulation on the basis of a unilateral mistake.

It is well established that the general rule in New York is that "[s]tipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside." Hallock v. State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]. In addition, stipulations executed with each party represented by counsel are given particular deference as binding contracts (see Chae Shin Oh v. Jeannot, 160 AD3d 701 [2d Dept 2018]; Kirkland v. Fayne, 78 AD3d 660 [2d Dept 2010]; Shalimar Leasing, LP v. Medina, 73 Misc 3d 22, 26 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2021, Weston, J., concurring]). Nonetheless, "'[u]nder almost any given state of facts, where to enforce a stipulation would be unjust or inequitable or permit the other party to gain an unconscionable advantage, courts will afford relief.'" RCS Recovery Servs., LLC v Mensah, 166 AD3d 823, 825 [2d Dept 2018] [quoting Goldstein v. Goldsmith, 243 AD 268, 272 [2d Dept 1935]].

Here, petitioner's agent states in an affidavit that the breakdown upon which it relied when settling the case included an incorrect total figure caused by a "computer error" (Show-Lain Cheng Aff., ¶ 4). The breakdown relied upon at the time of the settlement included the correct figures, but an erroneous total. The court notes that the months due minus the payments credited, as reflected in both the original breakdown and the "corrected" breakdown, add up to $16,018.75, the figure that petitioner claims was the correct figure in October 2023, when the case was settled. Respondent does not dispute the figure itself (indeed, there is no affidavit in opposition), but asserts that she relied on the total in the breakdown used by petitioner on the date of settlement and argues that petitioner cannot obtain relief as a result of its unilateral mistake.

The court finds in these circumstances that the "computer error" relied upon when [*3]settling the case took the case out of the ordinary course and caused petitioner to inadvertently and improvidently enter into a stipulation based on a total amount of rent claimed to be due that did not accurately reflect the charges and payments included in the breakdown. While petitioner, as a represented landlord, has an obligation to be diligent before settling a case, the court finds that allowing the stipulation to stand would permit respondent to potentially obtain an unjust windfall.^[FN1] Therefore, the court will vacate the stipulation of settlement and restore the parties to the status quo before the entry of the stipulation (Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d at 150). Any payments made under the October 27, 2023 stipulation and negotiated shall nonetheless be credited to respondent.

Accordingly, for each of these reasons, petitioner's motion is granted and the October 27, 2023 stipulation is vacated. The case will be restored to the Part O calendar for pretrial conference on January 8, 2024 at 9:30 AM. This Decision/Order will be filed to NYSCEF.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.