2345 CROTONA GOLD, LLC, pet-land-res, v. CIARA DROSS, res-tent-app

16-083. 2345 CROTONA GOLD, LLC, pet-land-res, v. CIARA DROSS, res-tent-app — Order (Laurie Marin, J.), dated May 12, 2015, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs, for the reasons stated by Laurie Marin, J. at Civil Court.

Civil Court properly denied tenant’s motion to vacate the so ordered stipulations settling the underlying nonpayment summary proceeding. No persuasive showing was made that the stipulations were tainted by mistake, fraud, or any other basis for voiding a contract (see Hallock v. State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]), or that it would be inequitable to hold the parties to their bargain (see Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143, 149-150 [1971]). Nor has tenant shown that she has a potential rent overcharge claim (cf. Striver 140 v. Cruz, 1 Misc 3d 29 [2003]). Indeed, tenant was aware, as far back as December 2011, prior to execution of the three stipulations now sought to be vacated, that landlord claimed an individual apartment improvement rent increase of $317.78, but tenant failed to submit any proof, or, indeed, make any argument that landlord was not entitled to such increase (cf. 2701 Grand Assocs., LLC v. Morel, __ Misc 3d __, 2016 NY Slip Op 50163[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016] [first and only stipulation of settlement properly vacated where the unrepresented tenant advanced a potentially meritorious overcharge claim, based upon a one-year rent increase of 88 percent, and immediately sought vacatur upon learning of the increase from a City agency]).