Brooks Shopping Ctr., LLC v Pizza Mania, Inc.
Annotate this CaseDecided on August 6, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., LaCAVA and IANNACCI, JJ
2011-291 W C.
Brooks Shopping Center, LLC, Respondent,
against
Pizza Mania, Inc. Doing Business as BRICK OVEN PIZZA MANIA, Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the City Court of Yonkers, Westchester County (Thomas R. Daly, J.), entered January 6, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied tenant's motion, in effect, to vacate a warrant of eviction and deem a money judgment satisfied, in a commercial nonpayment summary proceeding.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, without costs, and tenant's motion, in effect, to vacate the warrant of eviction and deem the money judgment satisfied is granted.
In this commercial nonpayment summary proceeding, the parties stipulated, on May 27, 2009, that landlord would have a final judgment awarding it possession and the sum of $122,093.69, together with a warrant, which would be stayed for tenant to make all specified rent payments required by the stipulation. On August 5, 2010, landlord submitted an affidavit of tenant's noncompliance with the stipulation, based, in part, on unpaid after-accruing rent, and, in part, upon tenant's failure to pay the 2009 common area maintenance (CAM) charges. Pursuant to the affidavit, a final judgment was entered on August 23, 2010, awarding landlord possession and the sum of $122,093.69, and a warrant issued. Thereafter, tenant moved, in effect, to vacate [*2]the warrant and deem the money judgment satisfied. In its opposing papers, landlord conceded that tenant had made all the rent payments required under the stipulation. By order entered January 6, 2011, insofar as appealed from, the City Court denied tenant's motion, in effect, to vacate the warrant and deem the money judgment satisfied.
As the stipulation did not include a provision for the payment of the CAM charges, tenant's failure to pay the charges did not violate the stipulation. Although one of tenant's after-accruing rent payments was not timely, landlord concedes that tenant made all the payments required under the stipulation (the CAM charge issue aside) and that the judgment has been satisfied.
In 41st Ave. Realty Assoc., LLC v Choices Women's Med. Ctr. (188 Misc 2d 274, 276 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2001]), which also involved a commercial nonpayment summary proceeding, the court stated: "It is the opinion of this court that tenant has presented a sufficient showing of good cause to justify the vacatur of the warrant under RPAPL 749 (3). This is not a case such as those where this court has found that tenant offered no excuse for late payment and where the landlord evinced no intent to permit tenant to continue in possession . . . The underlying proceeding herein was not a simple case of a tenant refusing to pay rent. There was a good faith dispute over which party to the lease was obligated to pay the fire guard coverage. The stipulation settling the dispute provided for a payment schedule . . . and rent payments were tendered by tenant. There is no dispute that all rent is paid to date . . . Courts abhor forfeitures and equity may intervene to prevent a forfeiture of a valuable leasehold where tenant has made good faith improvements, landlord is not harmed and tenant would sustain a substantial loss."
It is well settled that a stipulation's enforcement is "subject to the supervision of the courts" (Malvin v Schwartz, 65 AD2d 769, 769 [1978], affd 48 NY2d 693 [1979]) and that "a court may relieve a party from the consequences of enforcement where such would be unjust or inequitable or permit the other party to gain an unconscionable advantage'" (Ribner v Ribisi, 10 Misc 3d 144[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50130[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2006], quoting Bank of NY v Forlini, 220 AD2d 377, 378 [1995]). Here, tenant has substantially complied with the stipulation's terms with respect to the timeliness of the payment of the after-accruing rent (e.g. Burruano v Burruano, 11 Misc 3d 135[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50475[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2006]). While tenant's August 2010 rent payment was received six days after tenant's receipt of a five-day notice to cure served by landlord, the default was minimal, and good cause was shown to justify vacating the warrant of eviction.
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, and tenant's motion, in effect, to vacate the warrant of eviction and deem the money judgment satisfied is granted.
Nicolai, P.J., LaCava and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 06, 2012
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
