208 Ave. A Assoc. v Calanni

[*1] 208 Ave. A Assoc. v Calanni 2014 NY Slip Op 51761(U) Decided on December 17, 2014 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 17, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, P.J., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ.
570775/14

208 Avenue A Associates, Petitioner-Appellant,

against

Linda Calanni and Ricardo Cordero, Respondents-Respondents, -and- "John Doe" and "Jane Doe," Respondents-Undertenants.

Petitioner appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Cheryl J. Gonzales, J.), entered on or about May 8, 2014, after a hearing, which granted respondent Ricardo Cordero's motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement and consent final judgment in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Cheryl J. Gonzales, J.), entered on or about May 8, 2014, reversed, with $10 costs, motion denied and consent final judgment reinstated. Execution of the warrant of eviction shall be stayed for 30 days from service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.

We find unavailing respondent Cordero's assertion that his attorney lacked authority to enter into the two-attorney, so-ordered stipulation settling the underlying licensee holdover proceeding. "Assuming, arguendo, that [the attorney] lacked the real authority to do so, as a matter of law, [he was] certainly clothed with apparent authority and the [petitioner] reasonably relied upon that appearance of authority" (1420 Concourse Corp. V Cruz, 175 AD2d 747, 749 [1991], citing Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 231 [1984]). Tenant was actively represented by counsel who negotiated the stipulation's provisions in open court, and tenant readily admitted that he spoke with counsel over the telephone and discussed the terms of a potential settlement.

Nor was any persuasive showing made that the stipulation was tainted by mistake, fraud, or any other basis for voiding a contract (see Hallock, 64 NY2d at 230), or that it would be inequitable to hold the parties to their bargain (see Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143, 149—150 [1971]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concurI concur I concur
Decision Date: December 17, 2014