Opinion
2017–1093 Q C
04-06-2018
ELMBACK OWNERS, LLC, Appellant, v. Noemi NEWBOLD, Respondent, et al., Undertenants.
Horing, Welikson & Rosen, P.C. (Renee Digrugilliers of counsel), for appellant. Noemi Newbold, respondent pro se (no brief filed).
Horing, Welikson & Rosen, P.C. (Renee Digrugilliers of counsel), for appellant.
Noemi Newbold, respondent pro se (no brief filed).
PRESENT: DAVID ELLIOT, J.P., MICHAEL L. PESCE, BERNICE D. SIEGAL, JJ
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
In this nonpayment proceeding, tenant, after being evicted following her default under the terms of a stipulation of settlement, moved to be restored to possession. Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted tenant's motion.
Enforcement of a stipulation remains subject to the supervision of the courts (see Malvin v. Schwartz , 65 AD2d 769 [1978], affd 48 NY2d 693 [1979] ), and courts may relieve a party from the consequences of strict enforcement of a stipulation when it would be unjust or inequitable, or would permit the other party to gain an unconscionable advantage (see e.g. Weitz v. Murphy , 241 AD2d 547 [1997] ; Bank of NY v. Forlini , 220 AD2d 377 [1995] ; Hyman Embroidery Works v. Action House , 89 AD2d 515 [1982] ). 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 Dept, 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 Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005]; AMA Realty v. Farfan , 4 Misc 3d 131[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50702[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004] ). Here, the long-term tenant diligently pursued funds to pay her arrears at the same time as she was undergoing chemotherapy, and landlord admits that no funds are owing. Under the particular circumstances in this nonpayment proceeding, we find that the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting tenant's motion.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
ELLIOT, J.P., PESCE and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.