1466 Holding Co. v Sanchez

[*1] 1466 Holding Co. v Sanchez 2013 NY Slip Op 51404(U) Decided on August 27, 2013 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 27, 2013
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hunter, Jr., J.P., Schoenfeld, Shulman, JJ
570306/13.

1466 Holding Co., Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant,

against

Carmen Sanchez, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent.

Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Marion C. Doherty, J.), dated February 14, 2013, which granted tenants' motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement, final judgment and warrant of eviction, and dismissed the petition in a nonpayment summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Marion C. Doherty, J.), dated February 14, 2013, modified to reinstate so-much of the petition as sought to recover the unsubsidized portion of the rent arrears, if any, owed by tenant; as modified, order affirmed, without costs.

A consent final judgment of over $5,600 was issued in favor of petitioner-landlord in this nonpayment summary proceeding, based on the terms of the parties so-ordered settlement stipulation, which the tenant entered into without representation. In support of her motion to vacate the stipulation, tenant, now represented by counsel, established that she was the recipient of a Section 8 subsidy that was terminated in December 2010, prior to the commencement of this proceeding, and that the nonpayment petition sought, and the stipulation obligated tenant to pay, the Section 8 share of the rent.

It is the general rule that, absent a showing by landlord of a new agreement, a Section 8 tenant does not become liable for the Section 8 share of the rent even after the termination of the subsidy (see Pinnacle Bronx W., LLC, v Jennings, 29 Misc 3d 61, 62 [2010]; Prospect Place HDFC v Gaildon, 6 Misc 3d 135[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50232[U] [App Term, 1st Dept]). Landlord's contrary argument notwithstanding, the August 2012 renewal lease purporting to obligate tenant to pay the full lease rent cannot be considered such a "new agreement" sufficient to change or modify the terms and conditions of tenant's expired lease (see Pinnacle Bronx W., LLC at 62). The Section 8 subsidy was a term and condition of tenant's rent stabilized lease that had to be incorporated into any lease renewal (see Rosario v Diagonal Realty, LLC, 8 NY3d 755 [2007]).
While a stipulation is essentially a contract and should not be lightly set aside, the court possesses the discretionary power to relieve parties from the consequences of a stipulation "if it [*2]appears that the stipulation was entered into inadvisedly or that it would be inequitable to hold the parties to it" (1420 Concourse Corp. v Cruz, 135 AD2d 371, 373 [1987], appeal dismissed 73 NY2d 868 [1989], citing Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143, 150 [1971]). In the circumstances here present, Civil Court appropriately exercised its discretion in relieving tenant of her uncounseled decision to assume responsibility for rent arrears that she was not obligated to pay under controlling case law.. The court went too far, however, in dismissing the nonpayment petition outright, since the landlord's facially meritorious claim to recover the unsubsidized portion of the rent remains unresolved.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: August 27, 2013