Opinion
No. 571054/10.
2012-09-7
117 WEST 142, LLC, Petitioner–Landlord v. Stephanie VILLANUEVA, Respondent–Tenant–Appellant, and Carlos Villanueva and Cowanda Dew–Villanueva, Respondents–Tenants.
Tenant Stephanie Villanueva appeals from (1) an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Arlene H. Hahn, J.), dated December 15, 2010, which denied her motion, in effect, to stay execution of a warrant of eviction in a nonpayment summary proceeding, and (2) an order, same court and Judge, dated February 14, 2011, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to the prior order.
Present: SCHOENFELD, J.P., TORRES, HUNTER, JR., JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Order (Arlene H. Hahn, J.), dated February 14, 2011, modified to permanently stay execution of the warrant of eviction; as modified, order affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order (Arlene H. Hahn, J .), dated December 15, 2010, dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the order dated February 14, 2011.
Measuring the tenant's brief lapse in payment against “the harsh result which would obtain upon literal enforcement of the default provision” in the stipulation settling the underlying nonpayment summary proceeding ( see Sherman Nagle Realty Corp. v. Felipe, 15 Misc.3d 136[A], 2007 N.Y. Slip Op 50808[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2007], quoting Bank of N.Y. v. Forlini, 220 A.D.2d 377, 378 [1995] ), we exercise our discretion to relieve tenant from her relatively brief payment defaults so as to avoid a forfeiture of the long-term rent stabilized tenancy. Tenant adequately explained her noncompliance, tendered all sums due under the stipulation within three weeks of the final installment date agreed upon by the parties and, so far as appears, has complied with her payment obligations during the period of the stay granted by this Court. In these circumstances, and given the absence from the stipulation of a “time of the essence” provision or other similar language, we find that sufficient “good cause” has been shown to warrant the requested relief (RPAPL § 749[3]; see Harvey 1390 LLC v. Bodenheim, 96 AD3d 664 [2012] ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.