615 Pelham Realty, Inc. v Herring

[*1] 615 Pelham Realty, Inc. v Herring 2014 NY Slip Op 50073(U) Decided on January 28, 2014 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 28, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Schoenfeld, Hunter, Jr., JJ
570651/13.

615 Pelham Realty, Inc., Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant,

against

Roger Herring, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent, -and- "John Doe"/"Jane Doe" Respondent-Undertenants.

Landlord, as limited by its brief, appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Elizabeth J. Yalin Tao, J.), dated January 30, 2013, as granted tenant's motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Elizabeth J. Yalin Tao, J.), dated January 30, 2013, insofar as appealed from, reversed, with $10 costs, tenant's motion to vacate the June 3, 2009 stipulation of settlement denied, stipulation reinstated, and matter remanded for a hearing to determine tenant's compliance with the stipulation.

Tenant failed to demonstrate legal cause to vacate the parties' initial, June 2009 so-ordered stipulation settling the underlying holdover proceeding. No showing was made that the stipulation - which permitted tenant to continue to harbor his dog and cat in the apartment on condition that he walked the dog "off premises" with a leash and muzzle and "clean[ed] up" after the dog — was tainted by fraud, mutual mistake or any other basis for voiding a contract (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]). Contrary to the view expressed below, the stipulation's terms were hardly "one-sided in favor of [landlord]," particularly given the landlord's conditional forbearance of the eviction remedy potentially available to it under the clear and enforceable no-pet provisions of the governing lease agreement. Nor was the stipulation rendered vague or ambiguous by the absence of a probationary or other time limitation; rather the stipulation reflected the parties' clear intent that the bargain struck would continue for as long as tenant maintained the pets identified therein.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: January 28, 2014