DECISION/ORDER After a Skype conference held on 8/20/20 and with careful consideration of the papers submitted in this matter, the court makes the following findings. The procedural history is as follows. This summary holdover proceeding, based upon a violation of substantial obligations of lease, more specifically creating a nuisance in the premises by maintaining “Colloyer ” conditions, first appeared on the Part H calendar on September 3, 2019.Part H is a Right to Counsel zip code part and provides counsel to residents in specific zip codes, including that of respondent’s apartment. On that date, the file indicates that instead of adjourning the matter to refer respondent to seek the advice of the assigned counsel program, the case was settled. Respondent, a NYCHA Section 8 recipient, agreed to enter into a stipulation of settlement with petitioner. The agreement provided for a final judgment of possession with issuance of the warrant forthwith. Respondent was to vacate on December 31, 2019. In consideration of her vacating, petitioner agreed to pay for her moving expenses and waive her share of rental arrears. The Hon. Kimon Thermos so ordered the agreement. A warrant issued on September 5, 2019. Respondent filed the first order to show cause on December 23, 2019 seeking an extension of time to vacate as there was a delay in obtaining her transfer package. The Hon. Evon Asforis signed the application and the matter was returnable on January 3, 2020. On that date, respondent appeared with counsel and the matter was adjourned for supplemental papers, which comprised of respondent’s second order to show cause seeking to vacate the pro se stipulation of settlement and the judgment and warrant and to file an amended answer. The matter was adjourned for submission of all papers on April 17,2020. The Covid 19 pandemic closed the court for a period of time and as a result, the matter was not heard until a skype conference with the court was held on August 20, 2020. Petitioner submitted its’ opposition to the first two orders to show cause and respondent filed her reply by August 27, 2020. The matter was marked submitted on that date. Both respondent’s orders to show cause are granted. While stipulations are “favored by the courts and not lightly set aside,” Hallock v. State, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 485 N.Y.S.2d 510, 474 N.E. 2d 1178(1984), the courts have the power to relieve parties from agreements, even if represented by counsel, if there is a showing of good cause. In re Frutiger’s estate, 29 N.Y. 2d 143, 324 N.Y.S. 2d 36, 272 N.E. 2d 543 (1971). In the instant proceeding, respondent has established sufficient good cause to vacate the agreement that was not only entered into on her first court appearance, but was done without giving her an opportunity to seek the advice from counsel, which she was entitled to as a resident of a zip code that was part of the Right to Counsel Program. In reviewing the file, the court notes that there was no notation on the file indicating if respondent was given a referral or, if she waived that right. Also, what is troubling to the court is that the nature of the allegations that the proceedings are based upon, nuisance and “Colloyer” like conditions, that create an unsafe and hazardous environment not only to respondent and her children but her neighbors, is serious in nature that should have red flagged this case for possible Adult Protective Services intervention. The court notes that the photos attached to the petition were problematic. While this court is not doubting that the circumstances that transpired when this agreement was so ordered were appropriate, it is necessary to ensure that a more comprehensive investigation is made into the allegations raised by petitioner and to explore all viable options for both sides in achieving a fair and equitable resolution. This can be done if both sides have representation and a guardian ad litem is appointed on respondent’s behalf to further assist if Adult Protective Services are needed. As a result of the foregoing, the court vacates the September 3, 2019 agreement and the ensuing judgment and warrant. The matter is restored to the calendar on September 30, 2020 at 2:30 p.m. Respondent to file an answer by the adjourned date. The court appoints Rudy C. Ferreira as the guardian ad litem for respondent. A referral will be made to Adult Protective Services. This constitutes the decision of the court. Dated: September 2, 2020
