Lewis v Charles

Annotate this Case
[*1] Lewis v Charles 2007 NY Slip Op 52456(U) [18 Misc 3d 128(A)] Decided on December 27, 2007 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 27, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ
2006-1950 K C.

James Lewis and Claire Lewis, Respondents,

against

Ingrid Charles, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Michelle D. Schreiber, J.), dated November 2, 2006. The order, in effect, denied a motion by tenant to set aside a final judgment, entered November 14, 2005, awarding landlords possession and the sum of $950.


Order affirmed without costs.

In this nonpayment proceeding, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement requiring tenant to pay $975.20 by September 8, 2005. Alleging that tenant had defaulted in making this payment and that the correct amount owed was only $950.20, not $975.20 as stated in the stipulation, landlords moved for the entry of a final judgment. Tenant did not submit opposition to the motion, and a final judgment was entered on November 14, 2005, awarding landlords possession and the sum of $950. Tenant's appeal from the final judgment was dismissed by order of this court dated June 14, 2006 for failure to perfect. Tenant thereafter moved to set aside the final judgment, alleging that the amount of the judgment was wrong because her rent is only $575. However, since it appears that the judgment reflects the amount agreed to in the stipulation as reduced based on landlords' admission, tenant showed no basis to set aside the judgment. Accordingly, the Civil Court's order denying tenant's motion is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 27, 2007

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.