765 Amsterdam Ave, LLC v Maynard

[*1] 765 Amsterdam Ave, LLC v Maynard 2010 NY Slip Op 50076(U) [26 Misc 3d 133(A)] Decided on January 21, 2010 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 21, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Shulman, Hunter, JJ
570369/09.

765 Amsterdam Ave, LLC, Petitioner-Respondent,

against

Leon Maynard, Respondent-Appellant.

Respondent Maynard appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (David J. Kaplan, J.), dated April 14, 2009, which denied his motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (David J. Kaplan, J.), dated April 14, 2009, affirmed, without costs.

Civil Court properly denied respondent Maynard's motion to vacate the two-attorney, so-ordered stipulation settling the underlying licensee holdover proceeding. Stipulations in settlement of disputes are judicially favored and not lightly cast aside, unless there is cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake or accident (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]; see also Hotel Cameron, Inc. v Purcell, 35 AD3d 135 [2006]). The record demonstrates that respondent received a substantial benefit for his agreement to vacate the subject apartment premises that he allegedly occupied as the licensee of the now deceased rent stabilized tenant. Respondent, who waited until the end of the stay period agreed upon by the parties before moving to vacate the stipulation on the ground of duress (see Board of Mgrs. of Atrium Condominium v West 79th St. Corp., 19 AD3d 241 [2005]; see also Arwin 74th St., LLC v Bhugra, 23 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50825[U] [2009]), failed to demonstrate any basis upon which to disturb the stipulation.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: January 21, 2010