Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County

Decided on May 18, 2026

Index No. LT-324284-23/BX

Elizabeth Donoghue, J.

[*1]

Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219(A), of the papers considered in the review of this Motion for:

Vacate Judgment- Failure to Comply with Stipulation

PAPERS NUMBERED

Order to Show Cause and Supporting Papers NYSCEF No. 49-54

Opposition Papers NYSCEF No. 63-66

Stipulations NYSCEF No.

Court File NYSCEF No. 1-54

Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision/Order in this motion is as follows:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Relevant Procedural History

Petitioner West Farms Estates Co. ("Petitioner") commenced this instant non-payment of rent proceeding seeking rental arrears for the premises located at 1320 West Farms Road, Apt. 4P, Bronx, New York 10459 ("subject premises") from Respondent NORA MIRANDA ("Respondent"). Respondent filed a pro se Answer on August 1, 2023, claiming in relevant part, that the rent or part of the rent has been paid, and that her HUD Section 8 subsidy was terminated because she did not want to move to a smaller apartment (NYSCEF No. 6).

Respondent initially appeared by Lasheca PLLC., on October 6, 2023 (NYSCEF No. 8). On February 8, 2024, Lasheca PLLC was relieved as counsel for Respondent (NYSCEF No. 9-10). On May 8, 2026, NAICA appeared for respondent (NYSCEF No. 14). The case was conferenced on several court dates and on May 8, 2024, the date of trial, NAICA, petitioner and respondent, their attorneys, and, with the aid of an official court interpreter, signed a Stipulation of Settlement (hereafter "Stipulation") (NYSCEF No. 15). In it, respondent consented to a final judgment for $33,498, (designated as all rent owed through May 2024); and the issuance of a [*2]warrant of eviction stayed to July 31, 2024. Respondent also agreed to downsize to a one-bedroom apartment when one became available.

Current OSC to Vacate the Stipulation: Mot. Seq. 7

Bronx Legal Services appears for respondent, and moves herein to vacate the two-attorney Stipulation of Settlement of May 8, 2024, to dismiss the proceeding, or, in the alternative to stay execution of the warrant to permit respondent additional time to satisfy the judgment. (NYSCEF No. 49-55).

Respondent argues that the Stipulation is unconscionable as it incorrectly calculated the amount of the judgment based on the full market rent of $2,225 per month, that the judgment reflects monies owed by Section 8, not the tenant's share, and that the termination notice was deficient for failing to follow HUD notice guidelines. Respondent argues that her counsel at the time, NAICA, pressured her to enter into the Stipulation to pay $33,598, and was told if she did not sign it, she would lose her home that night. Respondent acknowledges that the Stipulation was interpreted to her in Spanish, but claims that she did not understand it and that her attorneys did not assist with her questions.

Petitioner opposes, arguing that respondent refused to downsize from a two-bedroom to a one-bedroom despite numerous meetings with the building staff, that she lost her subsidy because of her decision not to downsize, that respondent had competent counsel when she elected to settle rather than try the case on May 8, 2024, and that stipulations of settlement —especially two attorney stipulations-- are favored by the courts. Petitioner notes that respondent owes $82,483.50 through January 2026 and has never downsized to a one-bedroom despite her agreement to in the Stipulation.

Discussion

A stipulation is a contract. Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224 (1984); Matter of Banos v Rhea, 25 NY3d 266 (2015). As stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts, Mill Rock Plaza Associates v Lively, 224 AD2d 301 (1st Dept 1996) and not lightly set aside, Hotel Cameron, Inc. v Purcell, 35 AD3d 153 (1st Dept 2006), a party moving to vacate a stipulation bears the burden of proving the grounds to vacate the stipulation. Cervera v Bressler, 85 AD3d 839 (2nd Dept 2011). A party seeking to vacate a stipulation should do so with reasonable promptness under the circumstances. Charlop v A.O. Smith Water Prods., 64 AD3d 486 (1st Dept 2009)^FN1

Courts maintain inherent discretion to vacate stipulations relieving a party of an agreement where "it appears that either party has inadvertently, inadvisably, or improvidently entered into an agreement, which will take the case out of the due and ordinary course of proceeding in the action, and in so doing may work to his prejudice." In re Estate of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 142 (1971). This is especially true if, after vacatur, both parties can be "restored to substantially their former position." Hallock v State of New York, supra.

Respondent has failed to meet the high standard needed to vacate a two-attorney stipulation. There is a presumption that a litigant's attorney has authority to enter into a settlement on behalf of the party. 20 Warren Street LLC v Kumar, 2025 NY Slip Op 51036(U) (App. Term 1st Dep't 2025) and that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifests the intent of the parties. Chimart Associate v Paul, 66 NY2d 570 (1986)

The Stipulation entered on the day of trial was not unconscionable. Respondent agreed to pay the full rent having lost her subsidy^FN2 (the procedure and merits of which she did not challenge at trial), was given more than two months to pay, and was permitted to remain in her two-bedroom apartment until a one-bedroom became available. The rent ledger and petition reflecting the full rent was a matter of public record since 2023 (NYSCEF No. 1) Respondent's current attorneys discovered that she was charged full rent when they were retained, in April 2025. However, a stipulation should not be vacated where ordinary care would have revealed a mistake and both parties were of equal bargaining power. Tatum as Tr. Of Charlie G. Tatum and Kim A. Tatum Living Tr Dated August 2nd 2005 v Jack, 82 Misc 3d 1206(A) (Civ. Ct. Kings Co. 2024) In this case, both parties were aware of the rent increase and the events leading up to the rent increase (failure to downsize). (Cf, Bridgeview II, LLC v Mars, 2015 NY Slip Op. 25398 (App Term 2d 2015) where the parties are unaware of the rent when they entered into the stipulation.)

Similarly, respondent's belated argument of improper HUD notice was waived when she elected to settle. Aside from this technical argument (which the court deems waived) respondent, in her affidavit in support, acknowledges that she met with the building staff when she received the notice to downsize. She explained her anticipated need for a second bedroom. Petitioner corroborates that its staff met with respondent multiple times to facilitate the downsizing of the apartment, to no avail. As a result, respondent lost her subsidy and was charged a higher rent.

In the interests of justice, the court stays execution of the warrant 30 days, to June 22, 2026, for respondent to pay $82,483.50, representing all rent owed through January 2026, plus February through June 2026 rent.

Date: May 18, 2026

Bronx, New York