Opinion
No. 2011–2074 K C.
2012-09-19
METROEB RLTY CORP. & REALTY MGMT. CO., Respondents, v. Troy FULLER, Appellant.
Present: WESTON, J.P., RIOS and SOLOMON, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.; op 32 Misc.3d 941), entered July 12, 2011. The order denied tenant's motion to vacate a stipulation and, in effect, a final judgment entered pursuant thereto, and to stay the proceeding pending the determination of tenant's Loft Board coverage application.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
In this nonpayment proceeding, the petition alleges that tenant defaulted in paying the monthly rent of $4,680 for the nine months of October 2008 through June 2009. In August 2009, the parties stipulated that landlord would be awarded a final judgment for possession and the sum of $32,500, the monthly rent was reduced to $4,000, and tenant was given a payment schedule. After tenant defaulted in making the agreed-upon payments, the parties executed a second stipulation, on March 11, 2010, in which they agreed that the proceeding would be converted to a holdover proceeding; that landlord would waive rent arrears; and that landlord would be awarded a final judgment, with execution of the warrant stayed to June 30, 2011 on the condition that tenant timely pay use and occupancy. In May 2011, tenant moved to vacate the March 11, 2010 stipulation and, in effect, the holdover final judgment, and to stay the proceeding pending the determination of a coverage application tenant had made to the Loft Board. In support of the motion, tenant claimed that he should be protected under the amendments to the Loft Law which had gone into effect on June 21, 2010 (L 2010, ch 135, § 1; L 2010, ch 147, § 1). The Civil Court denied tenant's motion, and we affirm.
As this proceeding was not based on a claim that tenant was occupying the premises illegally but rather on tenant's defaults in paying rent, the broad remedial purposes of the amendments to the Loft Law would not be furthered by upsetting landlord's vested rights in the previously obtained final judgment ( compare Lipkis v.. Pikus, 103 A.D.2d 682 [1984],affd64 N.Y.2d 830 [1985],with Gordon & Gordon v. Madavin, Ltd., 108 Misc.2d 349 [App Term, 1st Dept 1981], affd85 A.D.2d 937 [1981] ). Accordingly, the order is affirmed.