Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Anne Katz, J.), dated April 23, 2009. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied a motion by tenant seeking, in effect, to be temporarily restored to possession and/or to vacate a stipulation of settlement and a final judgment entered pursuant thereto.
Chung Yeun Tien v Luya Liu
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 23, 2010
PRESENT: GOLIA, J.P., PESCE and STEINHARDT, JJ
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.
In this residential holdover proceeding, tenant's oral month-to-month tenancy was terminated by a 30-day notice pursuant to Real Property Law § 232-a. On February 2, 2009, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement which, among other things, provided that landlords would have a final judgment of possession with execution of the warrant stayed until April 2, 2009. A final judgment was entered on February 2, 2009 pursuant to the stipulation. Tenant was apparently evicted on April 8, 2009. On April 21, 2009, tenant moved, in effect, to be temporarily restored to possession and/or to vacate the stipulation of settlement and the final judgment entered pursuant thereto. The Civil Court denied the motion, and tenant appeals.
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 ; Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143 ). Tenant has never set forth any such basis to invalidate the stipulation entered into in this proceeding. Thus, the Civil Court properly denied the branch of tenant's motion seeking to vacate the stipulation of settlement upon which the final judgment was based. With respect to tenant's application to be temporarily restored to possession, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in refusing such request as tenant showed no sufficient basis for this relief.
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.
Golia, J.P., Pesce and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 23, 2010
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...