Cates v Pivonski

[*1] Cates v Pivonski 2015 NY Slip Op 51905(U) Decided on December 28, 2015 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 28, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Shulman, Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570683/15

Alexandra Cates, Petitioner-Appellant,

against

Carla Pivonski, Respondent-Respondent.

Petitioner-appellant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Peter M. Wendt, J.), dated May 19, 2015, which denied her motion to enforce a so-ordered stipulation of settlement in a nonpayment summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Peter M. Wendt, J.), dated May 19, 2015, reversed, petitioner-appellant's motion granted to the extent of awarding her a money judgment in the principal sum of $33,000. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

In light of respondent Pivonski's undisputed failure to comply with the unambiguous payment terms of the two-attorney, so-ordered stipulation settling the underlying nonpayment summary proceeding, the court should have awarded petitioner a money judgment consistent with the stipulation's terms. Strict enforcement of stipulations of settlement serve the interest of efficient dispute resolution, and is essential to the management of court calendars and the integrity of the litigation process (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]; Hotel Cameron, Inc. v Purcell, 35 AD3d 153, 155 [2006]). Contrary to the conclusion reached below, petitioner was not required to serve a second notice of default under the stipulation, since the delay between service of the default notice and the motion for a money judgment was undisputedly caused by the loss and subsequent reconstruction of the Civil Court file, and was not shown to have prejudiced respondent.

We note respondent's failure to serve a brief on appeal.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: December 28, 2015