City of New York v Zayas

[*1] City of New York v Zayas 2005 NY Slip Op 50296(U) Decided on March 8, 2005 Appellate Term, First 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 8, 2005
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT:
HON. LUCINDO SUAREZ, P.J.
HON. PHYLLIS GANGEL-JACOB
HON. MARTIN SCHOENFELD, Justices.
570696/03

City of New York, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,

against

Alida Zayas, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.

Tenant, as limited by her briefs, appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court, New York County, entered July 21, 2003 (Laurie L. Lau, J.) as denied her motion to vacate the so-ordered stipulations entered into by the parties in settlement of a holdover summary proceeding, and granted petitioner's motion for summary judgment on the petition in a related, but unconsolidated licensee holdover proceeding.

PER CURIAM:

Order entered July 21, 2003 (Laurie L. Lau, J.) affirmed, without costs.

Civil Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the tenant's belated motion to vacate the successive so-ordered stipulations settling the underlying illegal use holdover proceeding brought to recover the demised West 148th Street apartment premises. No showing was made that the stipulations were entered into inadvisedly or that it would be inequitable to hold the parties to the agreements' unambiguous terms (see Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143, 150 [1971]). Nor does the record present a genuine factual issue requiring a trial of the subsequent licensee holdover proceeding involving the Eighth Avenue apartment premises. Tenant has advanced no legal cause to avoid the plainly worded provisions of the parties' written agreement covering tenant's "temporary relocation" to the Eighth Avenue premises, the tenant's breach of [*2]which is firmly established in the record. We have considered the tenant's remaining arguments and find them lacking in substantial merit.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: March 08, 2005