The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 006) 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124 were read on this motion to/for MODIFY. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION In this action alleging rent overcharge and breach of the warranty of habitability; defendants Mark Silber; Jonathan Ramirez; Rhodium FC LP; RH Management Services, LLC; RH 528 West 159th St LP; RH 530 West 159th Street LP; RH 532 West 159th Street, LP; RH 534 West 159th Street LP; and RH 536-538 West 159th Street LP (“Moving Defendants”) move for an order modifying the July 11, 2017 stipulation regarding rent owed by certain plaintiffs (NYSCEF Doc. No. 32, “Rent Stipulation”). Plaintiffs, who are current and former tenants of buildings owned by defendants, oppose the motion. Plaintiffs commenced this action in March 2017. Plaintiffs claim that the defendants have engaged in rent overcharges and breached the warranty of habitability due to conditions of disrepair throughout the subject buildings and Plaintiffs’ apartments. On July 11, 2017, the parties executed the Rent Stipulation. According to Moving Defendants, Plaintiff Amirah Daniels commenced an action with the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (“DHCR”) prior to the execution of the Rent Stipulation. The Rent Stipulation provides, in relevant part, that Plaintiffs will pay certain rental amounts “[d]uring the pendency of litigation” (Rent Stipulation 5). The Rent Stipulation further states “[w]ithout admitt[ing] the legality of these rents, [Moving Defendants] will accept the same without prejudice as to their claims, and without incurring future treble damages during the pendency of the above captioned litigation” (id. 6). In a decision dated April 27, 2018 (Freed, J.), the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s rent overcharge causes of action and referred those claims to the DHCR (NYSCEF Doc. No. 75). In its decision, the Court further ordered this action stayed pending the DHCR’s determination of rent regulation issues while also ordering that the Court retained jurisdiction to determine all issues not decided by the DHCR (id.). It appears that the remaining Plaintiffs all filed DHCR overcharge actions. In a so-ordered stipulation signed by counsel dated February 26, 2019, after the DHCR complaints were filed, the parties agreed that “the rent stipulation [between Moving Defendants and Plaintiffs] remains in effect and is enforceable” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 104). That stipulation further provided for various conditions to be addressed by Defendants. On May 20, 2021, the DHCR issued an order denying the rent overcharge complaint of Plaintiff Emoc Dailey (NYSCEF Doc. No. 117). According to the Moving Defendants, Amirah Daniels’s DHCR overcharge complaint was also denied, and no decision has been issued with respect to the rent overcharge complaints of the remaining Plaintiffs (NYSCEF Doc. No. 116 14). The Moving Defendants now ask the Court to modify the Rent Stipulation “to reflect that the agreed upon rental amount to [be] paid and accepted during the pendency of this litigation ends when a decision on the legal rent for each subject apartment is rendered by the [DHCR]” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 115). They argue that the Rent Stipulation should be modified because, at the time the Rent Stipulation was executed, the parties did not contemplate that the Court would dismiss the rent overcharge claims and refer them to the DHCR as it did in its decision of April 27, 2018. In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that the Rent Stipulation clearly states that it “endures for the duration of the instant proceeding” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 119 5). They further maintain that the Rent Stipulation should remain in force because the warranty of habitability claims are still before the Court and have yet to be litigated. Plaintiffs assert that the alleged disrepair of the apartments and buildings have not been remedied despite Defendants’ agreement to do so, including in the February 26, 2019 so-ordered stipulation (id.
