Opinion
No. 2023-14 K C
07-26-2024
Sara E. Kuntz, Respondent, v. Ahzad Ali, Appellant.
Ahzad Ali, appellant pro se. Sara E. Kuntz, respondent pro se (no brief filed).
Unpublished Opinion
Ahzad Ali, appellant pro se.
Sara E. Kuntz, respondent pro se (no brief filed).
PRESENT:: MARINA CORA MUNDY, J.P., WAVNY TOUSSAINT, PHILLIP HOM, JJ
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Nicholas W. Moyne, J.), entered December 15, 2022. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $4,000 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for further proceedings in accordance with this decision and order.
In this small claims action, plaintiff sought to recover the principal sum of $6,000, based on defendant's failure to return her security deposit, and defendant counterclaimed to recover the principal sum of $10,000. At a nonjury trial on December 13, 2022, both pro se parties agreed to settle the matter. The parties stipulated, on the record in open court, that defendant would pay plaintiff $2,200, representing her security deposit plus interest, within 30 days. Upon timely payment, the entire action would be dismissed. Upon default, plaintiff could request the entry of a judgment for $6,000.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Civil Court issued a decision dated December 13, 2022, which provided as follows: "Judgment for claimant in the amount of $4000 for the reasons set forth on the record, including willfulness pursuant to GOL § 7-108 (1-a) (g). Counter-claim dismissed." A judgment was subsequently entered on December 15, 2022 in accordance with the decision. Defendant appeals, arguing that plaintiff's cause of action should be dismissed and that he should be awarded a judgment for unpaid rent and damage to the apartment. He does not argue that the December 13, 2022 stipulation should be vacated.
In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has... been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (CCA 1807; see CCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 A.D.2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 A.D.2d 125 [2000]).
Oral stipulations of settlement that are entered into in open court are binding, absent indefinite terms, fraud, collusion, mistake, accident, or some other ground of a similar nature (see CPLR 2104; Hallock v State, 64 N.Y.2d 224 [1984]; Matter of Dolgin Eldert Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 1 [1972]; Bauer v Lygren, 113 A.D.2d 913 [1985]). Here, the Civil Court prematurely entered a judgment in contravention of the binding terms of an open court stipulation of settlement. Consequently, we find that substantial justice (see CCA 1804, 1807) requires that defendant be given an opportunity to comply with the stipulation by paying plaintiff the agreed-upon sum of $2,200 within 30 days of the entry of this decision and order. If defendant complies, the action should be dismissed in accordance with the stipulation of settlement. If he does not comply, plaintiff may seek the entry of a judgment.
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for further proceedings in accordance with this decision and order.
MUNDY, J.P., TOUSSAINT and HOM, JJ., concur.