1114 Morris Ave. HDFC v Johnson

Annotate this Case
[*1] 1114 Morris Ave. HDFC v Johnson 2009 NY Slip Op 51056(U) [23 Misc 3d 142(A)] Decided on May 29, 2009 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on May 29, 2009
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, Heitler, JJ
570419/08.

1114 Morris Avenue HDFC, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,

against

Georgette Johnson, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.

Tenant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Lydia C. Lai, J.), entered August 8, 2008, which denied her motion to stay execution of a warrant of eviction in a holdover summary proceeding based upon chronic nonpayment of rent. Landlord appeals from a prior order of the same court (Eleanora Ofshtein, J.), dated June 5, 2008, which granted tenant's earlier motion to stay execution of the warrant.


Per Curiam.
Order (Lydia C. Lai, J.) entered August 8, 2008,
affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order (Eleanora Ofshtein, J.), dated June 5, 2008, dismissed, without costs, as academic and abandoned.

We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of tenant's application for relief from her most recent default in tendering rent due pursuant to the unambiguous payment terms of the parties' settlement stipulation. "Strict enforcement of the parties' stipulation ... is warranted based upon the principle that the parties to a civil dispute are free to chart their own litigation course" (Mill Rock Plaza Assoc. v Lively, 224 AD2d 301 [1996]), particularly where, as here, the repeated rent delinquencies underlying the landlord's holdover petition continued into the probationary period agreed to by the parties.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: May 29, 2009

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.