7 E. 75 LLC v Bekuraidze

[*1] 7 E. 75 LLC v Bekuraidze 2014 NY Slip Op 51481(U) Decided on October 10, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 10, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Hunter, Jr., Ling-Cohan, JJ.
571113/13

7 East 75 LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,

against

Mzia Bekuraidze, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.

Tenant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), entered October 28, 2013, which denied her motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement and consent final judgment in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), dated October 28, 2013, affirmed, with $10 costs.

We find unavailing tenant's claim that her attorney lacked authority to enter into the so-ordered stipulation settling the underlying holdover summary proceeding. "Assuming, arguendo, that [the attorney] lacked the real authority to do so, as a matter of law, [she] was certainly clothed with apparent authority and the [landlord] reasonably relied upon that appearance of authority" (1420 Concourse Corp. v. Cruz, 175 AD2d 747, 749 [1991]), citing Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 231 [1984]). Tenant was actively represented by counsel who negotiated the stipulation's provisions in open court, and tenant readily admitted in her moving affidavit below that she "spoke with [counsel] over the telephone while [counsel] was in court, and discussed the terms of a potential settlement." Moreover, tenant ratified counsel's authority by making two separate use and occupancy payments required by the terms of the stipulation (see Daniel Gale Assoc. v Hillcrest Estates, 283 AD2d 386 [2001]).

Nor was any persuasive showing made that the stipulation was tainted by fraud, mutual mistake or any other basis for voiding a contract (Hallock, 64 NY2d at 230). Prior to settling this litigation upon advice of counsel in September 2013, tenant was necessarily aware of the facts giving rise to her assertion that landlord had improperly deregulated the apartment before she took occupancy in May 2009, having unsuccessfully argued the point in the DHCR proceeding that she initiated (see Matter of Matinzi v Joy, 60 NY2d 835, 836 [1983]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concurI concur
Decision Date: October 10, 2014