Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219(A), of the papers considered in the review of this Motion for: vacating the stipulation, restoring the case to the calendar for a date certain PAPERS NUMBERED Notice of Motion and Affidavits Annexed Order to Show Cause and Affidavits Annexed 1 Answering Affidavits 2 Replying Affidavits 3 Exhibits Stipulations Other Decision/Order Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision/Order in this Motion is as follows: This is respondent, Nicole James,’ (“Ms. James”) order to show cause to vacate the stipulation of settlement dated, January 22, 2019. On that stipulation, Ms. James appeared pro se and consented to being added as a party to the proceeding, despite not having been named. The named respondent/leaseholder is “Kirk Anthony James.” Ms. James represented on the stipulation that she was the wife of Kirk Anthony James and that she appeared on his behalf with authority to enter into the agreement. Subsequently, Ms. James retained counsel who moves to vacate the stipulation on the grounds that it was entered into as one-sided, unjust and unduly harsh. Specifically, Ms. James argues the stipulation was entered into inadvisedly and improvidently because when she signed the stipulation she was not aware of defenses available to her. Ms. James in her affidavit in support of the motion states that on the January 22, 2019 appearance, she was not aware that her apartment had to be registered with the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (“DHCR”). She was also not aware that the leases for the subject premises were supposed to be registered with DHCR. (Dominguez Aff’d 5).1 She states that she was not aware that the rent had substantially increased and that the legal rent in the rent demand could be possibly illegal. (Dominguez Aff’d 6). According to her attorney, DHCR apartment registrations (Exhibit D) show that the subject apartment was registered as vacant from 2008 to 2011. (Ponce Affrm 9). It shows two increases applied to the subject premises from $519.82 to $535.10 in 2010 and subsequently increased to $1,150. Additionally, she claims that she did not know that she could assert succession rights, if her husband vacated the premises. It is well-settled law that court ordered stipulations are essentially a contract and should not be lightly set aside. Matter of Frutiger, 29 N.Y.2d 143 (1971); Hallock v. State of NY, 64 N.Y.2d 224 (1984). However, the court has discretion to relieve parties from a stipulation when good cause is present. Matter of Frutiger, supra. Good cause includes but is not limited to fraud, collusion, mistake or accident. Id. Furthermore, a court may vacate a stipulation agreement in the event that either party has “inadvertently, unadvisably or improvidently entered into an agreement which will take the case out of the due and ordinary course of proceeding in the action and works to his prejudice.” Id. at 150. Thus, courts have broad discretion to set aside stipulation agreements if the circumstances of the case warrant. Here, Ms. James, now represented by counsel, has raised a potentially meritorious rent overcharge claim,”…which should not be deemed forfeited by her uncounseled decision to consent to judgment.” Tabak Assocs., LLC v. Vargas, 48 Misc. 3d 143(A) (AT 1st Dep’t 2015). Under these circumstances, Ms. James’ motion to vacate the stipulation of January 22, 2019 is granted. Ms. James also moves to amend her answer. Under CPLR 3025(b), a party must seek leave of court to amend his or her answer, if it has been more than twenty days, after service of the answer. When deciding whether to permit an amended answer, a court considers the following factors: merit to defenses, reason for delay, and prejudice to the petitioner caused by the delay. Norwood v. City of New York, 203 A.D.2d 147 (1st Dep’t 1994). Here, it has been more than twenty days, since her oral answer on November 26, 2018. Therefore, respondent moves for leave of court to amend her answer. Upon this Court’s review of the proposed amended answer, respondent has facially presented viable defenses in her proposed amended answer including rent overcharge, improper rent demand, succession rights and counterclaims for rent overcharge and breach of warranty of habitability. Also, respondent has shown a valid reason for delay, since she initially answered pro se and was not aware of her defenses. Therefore, she was unable to initially articulate all her defenses. (Dominguez Aff’d 6). Moreover, petitioner has not been prejudiced by the delay in filing. These are typical defenses asserted in non-payment proceedings. Accordingly, respondent’s motion to amend her answer is granted. The proposed verified amended answer as Exhibit F to the motion is deemed filed and served. The matter is adjourned to February 14, 2020, Part F, Room 830 at 9:30 a.m. for all purposes. ORDERED that respondent’s motion to vacate the stipulation of January 22, 2019 is granted and the judgment and warrant entered into by the stipulation is also vacated. ORDERED that respondent’s motion to amend the answer is granted. This is the decision and order of the Court, copies of which are being hand delivered to those indicated below. Dated: December 10, 2019 New York, NY
