Westhab, Inc. v Thomas
Annotate this CaseDecided on November 27, 2017
City Court of Mount Vernon
Westhab, Inc., Petitioner,
against
Howard Thomas, Respondent.
1944-16
Gutman, Mintz, Baker & Sonnenfeldt, PC
Attorneys for Petitioner
813 Jericho Turnpike
New Hyde Park, New York 11040
Legal Services of the Hudson Valley
Attorneys for Respondent
90 Maple Avenue
White Plains, New York 10601
Adrian N. Armstrong, J.
In this summary holdover proceeding, the petitioner, Westhab Inc., moves for entry of a judgment of possession and issuance of a warrant of eviction forthwith pursuant to a so-ordered stipulation between the parties on the ground that respondent, Howard Thomas, defaulted on the stipulation terms. The respondent opposes the motion on the grounds that the petition has failed to sufficiently establish that respondent has violated the terms of the stipulation.
The petitioner and the respondent previously executed a Rental Assistance Participation Agreement ("RAP") for the letting of residential property known as and located at 156 South 1st Ave., Apt. 11N, Mt. Vernon, NY 10550. Pursuant to the RAP, the respondent agreed to pay a portion of the rent for the subject premises directly to Westhab by the 5th day of each month. After several defaults of those terms, as well as other terms, the petitioner began the process to terminate the respondent from the rental assistance program. When the petitioner concluded its review of the respondent's case, they decided to terminate him from the program and requested he vacate the subject premises. The respondent did not quit the subject premises and the petitioner commenced the instant summary licensee holdover proceeding.
The subject tenancy is a Shelter Plus Care program tenancy governed by federal regulations 24 C.F.R. §§ 582.1 - 582.410. The parties' stipulation of settlement, dated August 17, 2016, specifically provided that, "Contingent upon compliance with this stipulation Westhab will allow Mr. Howard Thomas to continue participation in the Shelter Plus Care Program." 24 C.F.R. § 582.1 provides that, "The Shelter Plus Care program ... is designed to link rental assistance to supportive services for hard-to-serve homeless persons with disabilities (primarily those who are seriously mentally ill; have chronic problems with alcohol, drugs, or both; or have acquired immunodeficiency syndrome [AIDS and related diseases]) and their families."
24 C.F.R. § 582.320 provides that, "The recipient may terminate assistance to aparticipant who violates program requirements or conditions of occupancy. Recipients must exercise judgment and examine all extenuating circumstances in determining when violations are serious enough to warrant termination, so that a participant's assistance is terminated only in the most severe cases. Recipients are not prohibited from resuming assistance to a participant whose assistance has been terminated."The HUD Shelter Plus Care Resource Manual interprets that regulation to note that termination of assistance is warranted only in the most severe cases where the behavior of the tenant leaves no other choice.
Petitioner is a program administrator of the Shelter Plus Care program. Respondent, Howard Thomas a participant of the Shelter Plus Care program, undeniably is a hard-to-serve formerly homeless person with a drug dependency disability. Additionally, the respondent is a military veteran.
In the instant action, the parties entered into a stipulation on August 17, 2016 in which respondent consented to the jurisdiction of this Court and a final judgment of possession was entered in favor of petitioner and the warrant was stayed. Pursuant to the stipulation, the execution of the warrant was stayed on the following conditions: 1) respondent was placed on probation for a period of 12 months during which time respondent agreed to comply with all terms and conditions as agreed upon in the RAP Agreement; 2) all use and occupancy currently outstanding in the amount of $2,523.36 was to be paid or guaranteed by September 7, 2016; 3) current use and occupancy was payable when due; 4) contingent upon compliance with the stipulation, petitioner would allow respondent to continue participation in the Shelter Plus Care Program whereby respondent's rent would be based upon approximately 30% of his income based upon pay stubs submitted by him to petitioner. Pursuant to the stipulation, in the event of a default by respondent, petitioner could move the Court to restore the matter to the calendar for the warrant of eviction, and the only issue to be determined by the Court at a hearing would be whether or not respondent had materially breached the terms of the stipulation. The stipulation of settlement was so-ordered by the Court.
On August 15, 2017, two days before the expiration of the probationary period, the petitioner interposed a motion to restore this proceeding to the court's calendar citing the respondent's failure to adhere to the terms of the RAP, in that he either did not pay his portion of the rent or tendered the same late. This court issued a decision restoring the matter to the court's calendar for a hearing. On November 1, 2017, the parties appeared before the Court and stipulated to the facts in this proceeding.
The parties agreed that the respondent's portion of the rent would be adjusted to [*2]zero for the month of November 2017 and until the respondent provided three consecutive pay stubs to the contrary. The parties also agreed that the payments contained on the respondent's rent ledger accurately reflected the money paid to the petitioner and the dates they were tendered. Additionally, the parties agreed that the petitioner properly increased the respondent's portion of the rent to $308.01 in May of 2017. Upon stipulating to the facts in this matter, the Court then instructed each party to submit a memorandum of law concerning the legal issues in this matter.
In support of the motion, petitioner argues that respondent has breached the terms of the stipulation by failing to pay ongoing use and occupancy throughout the majority of the twelve month stipulation period. Petitioner contends that pursuant to the stipulation respondent agreed to comply with all the terms and conditions of the RAP Agreement and paying his share of the rent is a term of the agreement. Respondent's Rent Ledger Summary Report indicates that respondent was charged rent in the amount of $188.10 for the months of October 2016 through April of 2017. For the months of May of 2017 through October of 2017, respondent's rent was $308.01 per month. Respondent's rent for November of 2017 is $0.00. In total, fromOctober 2016 until the end of the probationary period in August of 2017, respondent was responsible for paying $3,164.76.
In total, from October of 2016 until the end of the probationary period in August of 2017, respondent paid $1,711.70. In addition, respondent presented to the court on November 1, 2017, a Letter of Guaranteed Payment, from the Bridge Fund to petitioner on respondent's behalf, in the amount of up to $1,525.34, conditioned on such payment serving to reinstate respondent's tenancy and make him a tenant and Shelter Plus Care subsidy recipient in good standing through November 1, 2017. Combining together, respondent's own payments and his conditionally guaranteed assistance payment are sufficient to cover his rent obligation through November of 2017.
The question now before the court is whether the respondent materially breached the terms of the stipulation of settlement so as to result in the issuance of the Judgment and Warrant of Eviction.
Settlement stipulations are favored and will not be undone absent proof that the settlement 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]). Nevertheless, it is well settled that the enforcement of a court-ordered stipulation of settlement is "subject to the supervision of the courts" (Malvin v Schwartz, 65 AD2d 769, 769 [1978], affd 48 NY2d 693 [1979]), and courts may relieve a party from the consequences of strict enforcement of a stipulation when such enforcement would be unjust or inequitable (see e.g. Weitz v Murphy, 241 AD2d 547 [1997]; Bank of NY v Forlini, 220 AD2d 377 [1995]). Such relief is appropriate where a party has substantially complied with the stipulation and where the default is de minimis (see e.g. Winthrop Realty, LLC v Menal, 21 Misc 3d 141[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52383[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; J & H Mgt. Corp. v W.W.R.S Automotive Inc., 7 Misc 3d 134[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50742[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005]).
In this Court's view, strict enforcement of the stipulation is not warranted on the [*3]facts of this case. Since the arrears payment that the respondent was to make pursuant to the subject stipulation by September 7, 2016, was in fact made timely and properly, and while it is undisputed that respondent has failed to pay rent as required by the parties' stipulation of settlement, the respondent has become able to pay all of the rent arrears that have accrued to date. For those reasons, this Court finds that respondent's payment history during the course of the stipulation of settlement's probationary period constitutes only a minor violation of that stipulation of settlement, not a material breach.
Accordingly, petitioner's motion for a Judgment of Possession and Warrant of Eviction against the respondent is denied. Respondent is directed to make payment of all arrears to date within ten days of receiving a copy of this Order with Notice of Entry.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.
Dated: November 27, 2017
Mount Vernon, New York
____________________________
HON. ADRIAN N. ARMSTRONG
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.
