Bromley Co. LLC v Rachman-Coakley

[*1] Bromley Co. LLC v Rachman-Coakley 2009 NY Slip Op 51787(U) [24 Misc 3d 144(A)] Decided on August 18, 2009 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 18, 2009
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, Heitler, JJ
.

The Bromley Company LLC, Petitioner-Respondent,570480/08

against

Jacqueline Rachman-Coakley, Respondent-Appellant.

Respondent Rachman-Coakley appeals from that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Oymin Chin, J.), dated February 27, 2008, which granted landlord's motion for entry of a final judgment in the sum of $7,861.76 and denied respondent's cross motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Appeal from order (Oymin Chin, J.), dated February 27, 2008, deemed an appeal from the ensuing final judgment (same court and Judge), entered February 27, 2008, and so considered, final judgment modified to permanently stay execution of the warrant of eviction; and as modified, affirmed, without costs.

We favorably exercise our discretion to grant appellant relief from her payment default under the so-ordered stipulation settling the underlying holdover summary proceeding. The January 2007 stipulation expressly recognized respondent as the successor rent stabilized tenant of the demised apartment premises and required her to pay a specified amount of rent arrears, receipt of which was acknowledged by petitioner. The stipulation further provided that an upward adjustment in rent would be collectible by petitioner for respondent's "share" of the arrears due if, as ultimately occurred here, respondent failed to qualify for a Senior Citizen Rent Increase Exemption (SCRIE) at an anticipated "frozen" legal rent of $l,348.47 per month for the period commencing January 1, 2001. The record shows that the SCRIE application was approved by the New York City Department for the Aging in April 2007, but at a higher "frozen" rent of $l,412.07 per month, commencing January l, 2005, thus triggering respondent's obligation to pay the contingent rent arrears by the dates set forth in the stipulation.

We agree that no basis was shown to set aside the global settlement stipulation knowingly entered into by the parties. However, strict enforcement of the possessory remedy provided for in the stipulation on the basis of the elderly respondent's failure to timely pay the additional rent arrears which became due under the stipulation's terms, would be unjust and inequitable (see [*2]generally Bank of New York v Forlini, 220 AD2d 377, 378 [1995]), especially in these circumstances, where respondent tendered the full amount of the final judgment in compliance with the conditions of the stay issued pending appeal.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: August 18, 2009