Stipulations of Settlement: Not Always Final and Binding
In their Landlord-Tenant column, Warren Estis and Michael Feinstein discuss the case 'Help Social Services v. John,' which they describe as a "cautionary reminder that, particularly when dealing with pro se tenants, stipulations of settlement may ultimately not be enforced, and may not accomplish the goal of finality which had hoped to be achieved."
December 04, 2018 at 02:30 PM
6 minute read
In the context of summary proceedings, as with other types of litigation, parties and the courts often prefer that disputes be resolved by consensual agreement. Settlements offer the parties the benefit of finality, and avoid the costs and risks involved in litigating a matter to a final conclusion. Settlements are encouraged by the courts, and it has long been the law that stipulations of settlement are “not lightly cast aside.” Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 230 (1984). Such is particularly so in the case of “open court” stipulations “where strict enforcement not only serves the interest of efficient dispute resolution but is also essential to the management of court calendars and the integrity of the litigation process.” 1420 Concourse Corp. v. Cruz, 135 A.D.2d 371, 372 (1st Dept. 1987).
Nevertheless, there are limited instances where stipulations of settlement are cast aside, and do not achieve the goal of finality which the parties presumably had intended to achieve by settling their dispute. This is particularly so in the context of pro se litigants, who are generally in a better position to try to avoid the consequences of a stipulation of settlement.
An October 2018 decision by Queens County Housing Court Judge Julie Poley in Help Social Servs. Corp. v. John, Index No. L&T 055660/2018 (Civ. Ct. Queens Co. 10/5/18) (John) stands as a recent example of a stipulation of settlement of a summary proceeding being set aside based upon certain compelling circumstances presented to the court.
'John'
In John, the landlord commenced a summary nonpayment proceeding against the residential tenant seeking to recover possession of the subject apartment B9, located at 203 Hollis Avenue, St. Albans, New York. The petition pleaded that the tenant received rental assistance from the New York City Living in Communities (LINC) Rental Assistance program, and that the apartment was supportive housing pursuant to a memorandum of understanding with the New York City Department of Mental Health and Hygiene.
The tenant filed a pro se answer to the petition. At the first appearance in court in March 2018, the tenant, appearing pro se, entered into a stipulation of settlement with the landlord. The stipulation of settlement granted the landlord a final judgment of possession in the amount of $5,930.48 owed through March 2018, warrant to issue forthwith, with execution of the warrant stayed through May 7, 2018 to permit the tenant to pay the rent arrears. If the tenant failed to pay the arrears on or before May 7, 2018, the landlord could execute on the warrant and evict the tenant from the apartment.
Thereafter, the tenant apparently retained counsel, who, on May 14, 2018, moved by order to show cause for an order (1) appointing a guardian ad litem for the tenant because he allegedly suffered from mental illness, and (2) vacating the stipulation of settlement and dismissing the non-payment petition on the ground that the predicate rent demand was defective and improper. While the motion was pending, the Adult Protective Services program (part of the New York City Human Resources Administration) advised the court that the tenant was accepted for participation within their agency, and that the tenant was in need of assistance because the tenant “suffer[ed] from mixed bipolar disorder and implosive control disorder, receives medication for these mental health conditions, and is receiving psychotherapy.” At that time, on consent of all parties, the court granted that portion of the motion seeking appointment of a guardian ad litem, and adjourned the remainder of the motion for argument and determination.
The court decided the remainder of the tenant's motion in October 2018. At the outset, it observed that while stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and “not lightly cast aside,” they can be vacated where a party can show “cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake or accident.” The court, citing to the First Department's decision in 1430 Concourse v. Cruz, supra, further observed that it “possesses the discretionary power to relieve parties from the consequences of a stipulation effected during litigation on such terms as it deems just and, if the circumstances warrant, it may exercise such power if it appears that the stipulation was entered into inadvisedly or that it would be inequitable to hold the parties to it.”
The Court also cited to several cases supporting the proposition that a stipulation of settlement may be vacated on the ground of “unilateral mistake” and that “vacatur of a stipulation is appropriate when a party—especially one who appears without counsel—enters into an agreement improvidently, and, in so doing, forgoes defenses sufficient to defeat the proceeding.”
The court found that based on the foregoing principals, the tenant had established his entitlement to vacate the stipulation of settlement. It held that such was established by virtue of tenant's “diagnosed mental illness and [tenant's] affidavit stating he was uncertain whether he wanted to enter into the agreement in which he was not represented by counsel….”
To make matters worse for the landlord, the court went on to find that the predicate rent demand was defective, thereby requiring the dismissal of the nonpayment proceeding. It observed that a predicate rent demand required by RPAPL §711(2) “must clearly state the approximate good faith estimate of the sum allegedly due as well as the period for which the rent is demanded.” The court found that the landlord's rent demand was improper in that it failed to reflect payments (shown on the landlord's own rent ledger) that the landlord had received from the New York City Human Resources Administration for the same period of time demanded in the rent demand and the petition. As such, it dismissed the proceeding without prejudice.
Conclusion
John stands as a cautionary reminder that, particularly when dealing with pro se tenants, stipulations of settlement may ultimately not be enforced, and may not accomplish the goal of finality which had hoped to be achieved. Landlords cannot take comfort that because the tenant signed a stipulation of settlement, the matter has been finally resolved.
Warren A. Estis is a founding member at Rosenberg & Estis. Michael E. Feinstein is a member at the firm.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Unraveling of Sean Combs: How Legislation from the #MeToo Movement Brought Diddy Down
When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
8 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250