New York City Hous. Auth. v Dunn
Decided on November 21, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON PATTERSON, J.P., GOLIA and BELEN, JJ
2006-1933 K C.
New York City Housing Authority FHA Repossessed Houses, Respondent,
Tamicka Dunn, Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Dawn
Marie Jimenez, J.), entered September 13, 2006. The order denied tenant's motion to vacate a
final judgment in a holdover summary proceeding.
Order affirmed without costs.
After an administrative hearing on charges of chronic rent delinquency, landlord New York City Housing Authority determined that tenant was no longer eligible to occupy its housing and terminated her tenancy. In this ensuing holdover summary proceeding, the parties stipulated to the entry of a final judgment in favor of landlord with execution of the warrant of eviction stayed for over three months, on condition tenant satisfy her rent arrears and pay use and occupancy in the amount of the rent until she vacated the premises. She failed to make the required payments and moved to vacate the final judgment and, in effect, the stipulation, alleging the availability of defenses to the rent due under her lease. The court below denied the motion, and we affirm.
Settlement stipulations are favored and will not be undone absent proof that the settlement was obtained by fraud, collusion, mistake, accident or other ground sufficient to invalidate a contract (e.g. Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 ; Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143, 149-150 ; Bushwick Props. Mgt. Ltd. Partnership v Woods, 3 Misc 3d 135[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50472[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). Here, tenant alleged no infirmity in the stipulation's terms nor any irregularity in the proceedings surrounding the stipulation's execution that would merit the relief sought. Tenant's challenges to the rent due under the lease would have been of no avail because the holdover proceeding was premised on an adverse administrative determination that her tenancy merited termination due to the chronic [*2]nonpayment of rent, a decision that cannot be collaterally attacked in a summary proceeding but only via a CPLR article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court (New York City Hous. Auth., Nostrand Houses v Margiato, 4 Misc 3d 135[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50781[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]; New York City Hous. Auth. v Velazquez, 191 Misc 2d 15, 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2001]; see also New York City Hous. Auth. v Evans, 9 Misc 3d 126[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51428[U] [App Term, 1st Dept]). We note that the time to initiate such a proceeding expired before tenant executed the stipulation (CPLR 217 ). Accordingly, tenant's motion to vacate the final judgment was properly denied.
Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 21, 2007