Many landlord-tenant cases are resolved by a stipulation of settlement. Courts generally favor such stipulations as an efficient means of resolving litigation in a system that would otherwise be overwhelmed by the volume of cases on the court calendars. That is especially so in Housing Court.
A recent decision by the Appellate Division, First Department in Chelsea 19 Associates v. James,1 illustrates a basic principle that courts have applied to stipulations of settlement to promote their use, i.e., that they need to be accorded finality and not easily avoided once entered into. (Jeffrey Turkel and Bradley S. Silverbush, partners at Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., represented the owner before the Appellate Division.) The court recognized that in certain circumstances, albeit rare, it could be proper to set aside a stipulation of settlement. However, the Appellate Division stated, the “tenant’s claimed difficulty in obtaining funds” he had stipulated to pay by a certain date, such that he did not tender that money until approximately seven months after the stipulated date, “does not fall under that rubric.”
