Opinion
No. LT–006725–11.
2012-06-28
KINGS POINT GATE, LLC, Petitioner(s) v. Minnie HOWARD, Respondent(s).
Gutman, Mintz, Baker & Sonnenfeldt, P.C., New Hyde Par, Attorneys for Petitioner. Fred L. Pollack, Esq., Mineola, Attorney for Respondent.
Gutman, Mintz, Baker & Sonnenfeldt, P.C., New Hyde Par, Attorneys for Petitioner. Fred L. Pollack, Esq., Mineola, Attorney for Respondent.
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE, J.
The following named papers numbered 1 to 3 submitted on this Motion on June 6, 2012
+---------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦papers numbered¦ +-----------------------------------------+---------------¦ ¦Notice of Motion and Supporting Documents¦1 ¦ +-----------------------------------------+---------------¦ ¦Opposition to Motion ¦2 ¦ +-----------------------------------------+---------------¦ ¦Reply Papers to Motion ¦3 ¦ +---------------------------------------------------------+
The Petitioner, Kings Point Gate LLC, moves for an order restoring this matter to the court calendar, for an entry of judgment of possession in favor of the Petitioner, issuance of the warrant of eviction forthwith and directing respondent to pay petitioner's attorney's fees. The Respondent opposes the motion. The Petitioner filed a reply.
In this action, the Petitioner claims that the Respondent has a long history of nuisance behavior and unsanitary conditions which have created fire and safety hazards in the premises. In the petitioner's reply affidavit, counsel has submitted as “Exhibit 1” numerous letters sent from the Petitioner to the Respondent since 2008, which acknowledged this problem and gave the Respondent the opportunity to remedy the unsanitary and hazardous conditions in her apartment and conform to the terms of her lease agreement. The petitioner has continuously reminded the Respondent that she cannot store her items in the common areas of the building and that the clutter and debris in her apartment have created a fire hazard. After commencing this holdover proceeding, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement on April 3, 2012,. Pursuant to the stipulation, the Respondent agreed in part to keep her apartment and the common areas clean.
Susan Sanim, an authorized agent of the petitioner, states that on April 6, 2012 and April 8, 2012, the Respondent breached the parties stipulation by leaving garbage and debris throughout the common areas of the building. Even the Respondent concedes in her affidavit in opposition that she left her items in the common areas on April 6, 2012 and April 8, 2012 but claims she did so because she had arranged for people to pick up her belongings from these areas.
As a general rule, stipulations will not be vacated absent a showing of good cause. It is public policy as well as the policy of the Court to encourage agreements of settlement and compromise. The Court recognizes that to set aside final settlements of dispute which were entered into voluntarily, in open court, and clearly understood by all the parties involved would open the floodgate of possible abuse and incessant litigation (see Seventy–Second Street Properties, Inc. v. Woods, 67 Misc.2d 539 [NY City Civil Court 1971] ). Furthermore, it is fundamental that an agreement and settlement reached in open court, with the cooperation and assistance of counsel and the court, should not be disturbed in the absence of the most extraordinary and compelling reasons (see Stewart v. Travelers Indem Co., 27 Misc.2d 883 [NY Supreme Ct 1966). Moreover, the Court will not vacate a stipulation of settlement where the parties are unable to revert back to the status quo (see Campbell v. Bussing, 274 AD 893 [2d Dept 1948] ).
The court is unable to resolve the conflicting claims of the parties. Therefore, this matter is set down for a conference with attorneys and clients who have authority to settle the matter. In the event that the matter cannot be resolved, the court will conduct a hearing on all issues raised, on August 1, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.
So Ordered: