Judge Gary F. Marton
Both parties submitted a proposed stipulation of settlement in this nonpayment proceeding for the court to “so-order.” Landlord 1063 EP LLC alleged rent arrears of nearly 2,000, but allocuted to an amount less than $500. The court also noted public assistance subsidized $650 of the rent, and the arrears consisted only of tenant Ross’ non-subsidized share. The proposed settlement provided for a conversion of the nonpayment action to one for a holdover. Ross was to vacate the premises by July 31, 2012 and landlord would pay her $7,100 for a timely vacatur. The court noted the settlement did not require the payment of rent, but did not preclude landlord from accepting public assistance payments. It also noted the stipulation did not require either party to notify public assistance of tenant’s planned departure. The court noted it would not normally enquire about the buyout, here, the State or City would appear to have a legitimate claim to the buyout monies under Social Services Law §104(1). Also, it stated stipulations are generally so-ordered as doing so served a public interest. Yet, the court found the instant proposed stipulation appeared at odds with public policy, declining to “so-order” it and restoring the action to the trial calendar.
