Crown Realty, LLC v Ford

Annotate this Case
[*1] Crown Realty, LLC v Ford 2012 NY Slip Op 50625(U) Decided on April 4, 2012 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 4, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and ALIOTTA, JJ
2011-398 K C.

Crown Realty, LLC, Respondent,

against

Linzy Ford, Appellant, -and- KAREN FORD, Undertenant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Oymin Chin, J.), entered February 3, 2011. The order denied tenant's motion to vacate a final judgment entered pursuant to a stipulation of settlement in a nonpayment summary proceeding.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this nonpayment proceeding, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement on December 2, 2010, which provided, among other things, that landlord would be awarded a final judgment and warrant, with execution of the warrant stayed to January 15, 2011 on condition that tenant make various payments. Upon a default in making the payments, landlord could execute upon the warrant of eviction. After failing to comply with the terms of the stipulation of settlement, tenant moved to vacate the final judgment. The Civil Court denied the motion.

Settlement stipulations are favored and will not be undone absent proof that the settlement was obtained by fraud, collusion, mistake, accident or other grounds sufficient to invalidate a contract (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224 [1984]; Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143 [1971]). As tenant did not set forth any proper basis to invalidate the stipulation, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying tenant's motion to vacate the final judgment.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 04, 2012

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.