Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

10-12 West 107th Street HDFC v. Vilma

Civil Court of City of New York, New York County

December 3, 2013

10-12 WEST 107TH STREET HDFC, Petitioner-Landlord
v.
Mireya VILMA, 12 West 107th Street— Apt 2C New York, New York 10025, Respondent-Tenant John Doe # 1,

Andrea Shapiro Esq., New York, Attorneys for Petitioner.

SRO Law Project, by Deborah S. Stern, Esq., New York, Attorneys for Respondent.

SABRINA B. KRAUS, J.

BACKGROUND

The underlying summary holdover proceeding was commenced by 10-12 WEST 107TH STREET HDFC (Petitioner) against MIREYA VILMA (Respondent), based on the allegation that Respondent was a month to month tenant who had chronically failed to pay her rent timely, and that Respondent had failed to accept a renewal offer at a higher rent.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner issued a thirty day notice of termination dated August 24, 2011(Notice).

The Notice asserted that throughout Respondent's tenancy Respondent had chronically failed to pay her rent on time. The Notice further asserts that from 1996 to 2011 at least twelve nonpayment proceedings were commenced, and index numbers for those proceedings are specified therein. The Notice further asserts that the proceeding started in 2006 was pending for a period of two years through and including November 2008. This was followed by a proceeding commenced in February 2009, which was pending through mid-2011. The Notice further asserts that the costs of this prolonged litigation end up being absorbed by the shareholders of the HDFC.

The petition is dated October 7, 2011, and the proceeding was initially returnable on October 19, 2011.

In December 2011, Counsel appeared for Respondent. On February 8, 2012, Respondent filed a written answer asserting an affirmative defense based on breach of warranty of habitability.

THE JULY 20, 2012 STIPULATION

On July 20, 2012, counsel for both parties entered into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation provides " (t)he parties acknowledge that the Petitioner is a low income' residential cooperative housing corporation. Respondent Mireya Vilma's tenancy, prior to termination, was month to month and not subject to any type of rent regulation."

The stipulation provided that Respondent would be on probation for a period of 12 months, during which time she agreed to pay her rent by the 10th day of each month. The stipulation provided that " TIME BEING OF THE ESSENCE" in two different paragraphs, but also afforded Respondent an opportunity to cure any defaults within 5 days of a notice to cure being faxed to Respondent's attorneys. The agreed upon use and occupancy was $1250 per month. The stipulation provided that Respondent would make all payments by money order or DSS checks.

The stipulation provided that if Respondent failed to cure the breach within the five day period, Petitioner would be entitled to restore for a judgment and a warrant, and that said relief would be granted without a hearing, unless the breach was disputed.

Respondent also acknowledged past due arrears at the time of the stipulation of $4087.00, this included $1500 in legal fees, which Respondent agreed to pay by August 31, 2012. Respondent did not have the funds to pay said arrears, but ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.