SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
November 4, 2011
A. FARUK SEMEN, RESPONDENT,
LUBOV DOR, APPELLANT.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Oymin Chin, J.), dated July 27, 2010.
Semen v Dor
Decided on November 4, 2011
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
PRESENT: RIOS, J.P., WESTON and GOLIA, JJ
The order denied tenant's motion to vacate a final judgment entered pursuant to a stipulation of settlement in a nonpayment summary proceeding.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
In this nonpayment proceeding, a final judgment was entered pursuant to a stipulation of settlement, awarding landlord possession and the sum of $7,641.62, and dismissing tenant's counterclaim. Tenant moved to vacate the final judgment, asserting that she needed more time to complete an application for emergency assistance, that she was requesting a stay pending the determination of a CPLR article 78 proceeding she had brought against the New York City Housing Authority, and that the amount of rent "listed does not match what DHCR has listed and includes late fees." By order dated July 27, 2010, the Civil Court denied tenant's motion, noting that tenant then owed $8,359.30 and showed no ability to pay.
On this appeal, tenant now claims that the stipulation was entered into under duress, and she seeks to raise issues concerning, e.g., the fact that the apartment was not painted while she lived in it, that the refrigerator made noise, and that the apartment had bedbugs. As these claims were not asserted in tenant's motion to vacate the final judgment, they are dehors the record and not properly before this court. Insofar as tenant raises a rent-overcharge issue on appeal, we note that she had asserted a rent-overcharge claim in her answer and that she waived this claim by entering into the stipulation of settlement (see generally 433 W. Assoc. v Murdock, 276 AD2d 360, 361 ).
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
Rios, J.P., Weston and Golia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 04, 2011
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.