Saavedra v Mor

[*1] Saavedra v Mor 2021 NY Slip Op 50773(U) Decided on July 30, 2021 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 30, 2021
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHELLE WESTON, J.P., WAVNY TOUSSAINT, DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ
2020-192 K C

Elba Saavedra, Also Known as Ruth E. Saavedra, Respondent,

against

Ayelet Mor, Appellant.

Ayelet Mor, appellant pro se. Slochowsky & Slochowsky, LLP (Charles Loveless of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Zhou Wang, J.), dated November 14, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied the branch of occupant's motion seeking to vacate a stipulation of settlement in a licensee summary proceeding.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

By order dated March 7, 2019, petitioner in this licensee proceeding (see RPAPL 713 [7]) was awarded summary judgment, with execution of the warrant stayed to May 31, 2019. A final judgment awarding petitioner possession was entered on March 19, 2019, and, by order dated August 14, 2019, upon renewal, the Civil Court adhered to its prior order granting petitioner's motion for summary judgment. On August 22, 2019, the parties entered into a so-ordered two-attorney stipulation which granted occupant until October 31, 2019 to vacate the premises. Occupant now appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order dated November 14, 2019 as denied the branch of her October 25, 2019 motion seeking to vacate the stipulation.

A stipulation will not be undone absent proof that it was obtained by fraud, collusion, mistake, accident or other ground sufficient to invalidate a contract (see e.g. Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224 [1984]; Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143 [1971]). Petitioner's right to possession was finally determined before the parties entered into the stipulation, which merely gave occupant until October 31, 2019 to vacate the apartment—more than seven months after the final judgment was entered. Occupant has not demonstrated any of the relevant grounds to vacate a contract, or that the stipulation was entered into "inadvertently, unadvisably or improvidently" (Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d at 150 [internal quotation marks omitted]), and the branch of her motion seeking to vacate the stipulation was properly denied.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

WESTON, J.P., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 30, 2021