Recitation, as required by CPLR Rule 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of Respondent’s Order to Show Cause to Vacate Judgment Based Upon Failure to Comply With a Stipulation and Petitioner’s Cross-Motion to Vacate Judgment and Stipulations of Settlement:Papers NumberedRespondent’s Order to Show Cause with Supporting Affidavit & Documents 1Petitioner’s Cross-Motion with Supporting Affirmation, Affidavit & Exhibits A-K 2Respondent’s Attorney’s Affirmation in Opposition to Cross-Motion and in Support of Order to Show Cause & Exhibits A-J 3Respondent’s Memorandum of Law 4Petitioner’s Reply Affirmation with Supporting Exhibits A-B 5DECISION & ORDERBACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY This is a nonpayment proceeding brought by petitioner-landlord Torres Apartments HDFC against Rent Stabilized respondent-tenant Rose Mays. The petition, dated April 11, 2017, seeks rent arrears of $2,685.66, comprised of rent at the monthly rate of $895.22 for February 2017 through April 2017. The petition is predicated upon a written rent demand dated March 24, 2017 seeking two months’ rent, for February and March 2017, at the monthly rate of $895.22. Respondent pro se used the court’s form to file an Answer to the Petition on May 5, 2017 raising a “General Denial” and a defense and counterclaim based on her need for repairs. The case first appeared on the court’s calendar on May 11 and was settled by petitioner through counsel and respondent pro se in a stipulation that awarded petitioner a judgment for $3580.88 as all rent owed through May 31, 2018, warrant to issue forthwith, execution stayed through June 21, 2017 for respondent to pay the judgment plus rent for June. The stipulation also required petitioner to inspect and repair “according to law” the conditions respondent alleged to exist in her apartment (kitchen floor, oven knob, closet door knobs). Respondent pro se then submitted and the court signed a series of four Orders to Show Cause seeking stays of execution of the warrant of eviction. All were settled by stipulations extending respondent’s payment deadlines and addressing her need for repairs, petitioner by counsel and respondent pro se until she retained counsel as of October 10, 2017, as follows:June 26, 2017 Stipulation: execution of the warrant of eviction stayed through June 30, 2017 for respondent to pay $3580.55 and then through July 17, 2017 for respondent to pay $895.22 plus use and occupancy for July; regarding repairs, “kitchen is being currently repaired”;July 31, 2017 Stipulation: execution of the warrant of eviction stayed through August 14, 2017 for respondent to pay $2921.32; regarding repairs, “petitioner is currently fixing the kitchen floor”;August 28, 2017 Stipulation: execution of the warrant of eviction stayed through September 18, 2017 for respondent to pay $3816.54; regarding repairs, “No repairs alleged”;October 10, 2017 Stipulation: execution of the warrant of eviction stayed through October 31, 2017 for respondent to pay $5174.88; regarding repairs, respondent alleged a list of conditions (broken windows in the back bedroom, bathroom and living room; bathroom light socket; paint and plaster kitchen wall; install stove; paint and plaster apartment) with access for petitioner to inspect and repair as required by law on October 24-26.On November 6, 2017, respondent took out her fifth Order to Show Cause1, the one which is now before the Court. Again, respondent sought a stay of execution of the warrant of eviction; in her sworn supporting affidavit she stated that she was “waiting for the one shot deal & HomeBase” and she attached copies of documents from the City’s Human Resources Administration and HomeBase Homeless Prevention Network. Notations on the court file indicate that, after several adjournments, the parties through their attorneys set up a briefing schedule for petitioner to interpose a cross-motion; on May 17, 2018 they extended their briefing schedule and adjourned the case to June 7, 2018 for petitioner to submit reply papers and for argument.In its cross-motion, petitioner seeks vacatur of “the Judgment and Stipulations in this proceeding,” a new final judgment “in the correct amount,” or, in the alternative, an order “amending the existing judgment to include the correct amount.” Petitioner also asks the Court to deny respondent’s Order to Show Cause.Petitioner supports its cross-motion with its attorney’s affirmation, its agent Sandra Bernard’s affidavit and copies of the following documents:the notice of petition, petition and rent demand;seven Stipulations of Settlement: the five referenced above, a sixth with a briefing schedule and one from a prior proceeding;a rent ledger dated 10/6/172 showing unpaid rent of $895.22 billed on 7/1/16, an “Arrears balance on property takeover” of $1436.32 as of 7/12/16 and a total due as of 10/1/17 of $5196.98 based on rent billed at monthly rates of $895.22 from July 2016 through September 2017 and $935.22 as of October 2017, minus payments made;three two-year Renewal Lease Forms: one dated 1/31/13 for the term of 4/1/13-3/31/15 (raising the rent from $895.22 to $935.22), and two dated and signed on 9/8/17, stating terms and monthly rental amounts of, respectively, 4/1/15-3/31/17 for $960.94 (based on a prior rent of $935.22 with a 2.75 percent increase) and 4/1/17-3/31/19 for $980.16 (based on a prior rent of $960.94 with a 2.00 percent increase);an undated chart of rents due and paid3 for the period of January 2017 through April 2018 showing: an opening balance of $6357.86; a closing balance of $9863.96; rent billed at the rate of $960.94 for the months of February and March 2017; rent billed at $980.16 for the months of April 2017 through April 2018; credit for various payments made with the most recent being for $1900 in March 2018.Petitioner argues that the judgment and stipulations should be vacated as they are based on a mutual mistake as to the monthly amount of respondent’s rent. Petitioner points to the three two-year renewal leases attached to its cross-motion and asserts that, “Unfortunately, Petitioner’s prior management company incorrectly charged Respondent from the inception of Lease 1 in April 2013 through June 2016, when the current management company took over the Building (the owner remained the same).…Unfortunately, the current management did not realize the mistake and continued charging Respondent the incorrect rental rate of $895.22 from July 2016.” Affirmation in Support of Cross-Motion at
27 and 28; Bernard Affidavit at
