Opinion
Index No. 151686/2022 Motion Seq. Nos. 003 004
01-12-2024
605 WEST 42ND OWNER LLC, Plaintiff, v. HECTOR PENA, BENJAMIN RODRIGUEZ, Defendants.
Unpublished Opinion
MOTION DATES: 11/17/2023, 11/22/2023
PRESENT: HON. PAULA.GOETZ, Justice
DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION
PAUL A. GOETZ, J.S.C.
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 52, 53, 54, 55, 72 were read on this motion to/for MISCELLANEOUS.
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73 were read on this motion to/for RENEW/REARGUE/RESETTLE/RECONSIDER.
Pro se defendant, Benjamin Rodriguez's motions (Mot Seq 003 & 004) will be treated as CPLR § 2221(e) motions to renew his prior motion to vacate his default judgement (Mot Seq 002).
BACKGROUND
On February 16, 2022 plaintiff in this case filed a petition in the New York County Civil Court - Landlord and Tenant Division against defendants (605 West 42nd Owner LLC v Hector Pena, Index No LT-302061-22/NY [Hous Part C 2022]). The petition sought possession of apartment Apt 18-M in the building located at 605 West 42nd Street, New York, New York, 10036 (the "Unit") rented in the name of defendant Hector Pena. This nuisance holdover petition alleged that plaintiff had received many complaints involving the behavior of defendant Benjamin Rodriguez who also resided in the Unit (Index No LT-302061-22/NY, NYSCEF Doc No 1).
On February 25, 2022, plaintiff filed this instant case alleging five causes of action for 1) Declaratory Judgement - Breach of the Lease; 2) Declaratory Judgment - Rescinding of Lease Agreement; 3) Breach of Lease: Injunctive Relief; 4) Ejectment; and 5) Attorneys' Fees. (NYSCEF Doc No 1). Plaintiff sought a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from occupying the Unit; a writ of ejectment; and a money judgement for the reasonable attorneys' fees expended in bringing this action (id.). Defendant Hector Pena failed to appear in this case or the Housing Court proceeding.
On October 28, 2022 unbeknownst to this court the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement in the Housing Court case which was So-Ordered by the Honorable Travis J. Arrindell on November 18, 2022 (Index No LT-302061-22/NY, NYSCEF Doc No 21). The parties agreed in the stipulation to a Probationary Period during which defendant Rodriguez would not engage in disruptive conduct in the apartment building (id. at ¶ 7). Paragraph 4 of the stipulation states "the parties have agreed to enter into this probationary stipulation in settlement of any and all claims between the parties." Additionally, paragraph 21 of the stipulation states that "Petitioner agrees to adjourn Supreme Court Index No. 151686/22, while the Probationary Period remains active" (id. at ¶ 21). The Probationary Period was to last from the execution of the stipulation until the end of Pena's lease on February 28, 2023 (id. at ¶ 6). However, if Rodriguez stayed in the Unit beyond February 28, 2023 the Probationary Period would extend to October 28, 2023 (id.).
In the event that a party alleged there was a material breach of the agreement, they were afforded the option of moving to restore the Housing Court proceeding for the sole issue of determining if such a breach occurred (id. at ¶ 12-14). If the Housing Court determined there was a breach then it could order appropriate relief including a judgement of possession (Index No LT-302061-22/NY, NYSCEF Doc No 21 at ¶ 15).
Despite the requirement in the settlement stipulation that plaintiffs would adjourn the instant action while the Probationary Period was active plaintiff continued to appear at discovery status conferences, did not inform the court of the Housing Court stipulation of settlement, and did not request an adjournment while the Probationary Period ran (NYSCEF Doc Nos 30 & 34). At a status conference on April 27, 2023, where defendant Rodriguez did not appear this court adjourned the conference to June 8, 2023 and ordered that "if defendants fail to appear on June 8, 2023 a default judgment will be granted to plaintiff (NYSCEF Doc No 34). Defendant did fail to appear at the June 8th conference and this court granted a default judgement in favor of plaintiff and directed the sheriff to place plaintiff in possession of the Unit (NYSCEF Doc No 36). Defendant was subsequently ejected from the Unit and his possessions were moved to a storage facility. Defendant asks the court to grant him leave to renew his motion to vacate the default judgment ejecting him. Defendant also asks for monetary relief to pay the storage fees he has incurred.
CPLR § 2221(e) states that a motion for leave to renew "shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination or shall demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination." "Although it is true that a motion to renew should generally be based upon newly-discovered facts, this rule is not inflexible, and the court has discretion to grant renewal in the interest of justice even upon facts that were known to the movant at the time the original motion was made" (Kaszar v Cho, 160 A.D.3d 501, 502 [1st Dept 2018]).
"[Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and are not lightly cast aside" (34 Funding Assoc, Inc. v Pollak, 26 A.D.3d 182, 182 [1st Dept 2006]). Settlement agreements are entitled to res judicata effect (Matter of Olympic Tower Assoc, v City of New York, 81 N.Y.2d 961 [1993]). "Allowing [parties] to seek the relief that it otherwise expressly forfeited would contravene the intended purpose and effect of the agreements" (Matter of Olympic Tower Assoc. v City of New York, 81 N.Y.2d 961, 963 [1993]).
Here, the parties entered into a settlement stipulation in which they settled all claims between the parties involving the nuisance allegations. Plaintiff argues that defendant breached the settlement stipulation, and this entitled them to continue this action. However, the stipulation provided a remedy in the event of an alleged breach by either party. Here, plaintiff sought to restore the Housing Court proceeding and requested a determination that Rodriguez breached the agreement. The Honorable Vanessa Fang by decision and order dated April 28, 2023 denied the plaintiffs motion to find defendant Rodriguez in breach. However regardless of the ultimate outcome of that motion, plaintiff was not permitted to seek the same relief from this court while the motion was still pending.
Plaintiff argues that because their motion in Housing Court alleging a breach restored the petition, that the settlement no longer had res judicata effect (NYSCEF Doc No 62). However, the stipulation states that while the Probationary Period is in effect the petitioner agrees to adjourn the instant case. The Probationary Period was still in effect during the time plaintiff appeared at the Status Conferences and was still in effect when this court granted default judgement in favor of the plaintiffs. Plaintiff never sought to adjourn the instant case and never informed the court of the stipulation settlement.
Therefore, since the settlement stipulation was in effect when this court issued the default judgement in plaintiffs favor, it had res judicata effect over this matter and this court could not issue a decision conflicting with the stipulation. Additionally, it should be noted that pro se defendant Rodriguez was represented by counsel in the Housing Court case as low income tenants can receive free legal counsel in New York City Housing Court, which is unavailable in this court. Since defendant was under the impression that the present case would be adjourned pursuant to the settlement stipulation and any proceedings would have to take place in Housing Court where he would be represented by counsel, his default in the instant case is excusable.
While plaintiff argues that some of the procedural elements in this motion are improper the court as in Kaszar will use its discretion to "grant renewal in the interest of justice" (See also Glob. Liberty Ins. Co. v Laruenceau, 187 A.D.3d 570 [1st Dept 2020] [finding that "renewal should have been granted in the interests of justice and substantive fairness" despite procedural defects]).
Accordingly, it is:
ORDERED that plaintiffs motions (Mot Seq 003 & 004) to renew motion sequence 002 to vacate the default judgment against him is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that the default judgment against plaintiff Rodriguez is vacated; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff is directed to restore possession of the Unit to defendant Rodriguez forthwith; and it is further
ORDERED that if plaintiff has re-rented the Unit to another party it shall grant defendant Rodriguez possession to a similar apartment at 605 West 42nd Street, New York, New York, 10036 forthwith; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff is directed to pay the storage fees for plaintiffs property and to return the stored property to the Unit plaintiff is occupying 605 West 42nd Street, New York, New York, 10036 within 15 days of this order; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff is directed to appear at a hearing on February 29, 2024 at 2:15 PM to show cause why it should not be sanctioned pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 for seeking a default judgment against defendant Rodriguez in light of the Housing Court stipulation of settlement.