34 Hillside Ave., LLC v. Mateo

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedJanuary 28, 2019
Docket2019 NYSlipOp 50113(U)
StatusPublished

This text of 34 Hillside Ave., LLC v. Mateo (34 Hillside Ave., LLC v. Mateo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
34 Hillside Ave., LLC v. Mateo, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion



34 Hillside Avenue, LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,

against

Nancy Mateo, et al, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.


Tenant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Gary F. Marton, J.), entered on or about July 6, 2018, after a hearing, which denied her motion to be restored to possession in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Gary F. Marton, J.), entered on or about July 6, 2018, reversed, without costs, and tenant's motion to be restored to possession granted on the condition that she pay any arrears and eviction costs within 10 days after service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.

In settlement of a chronic nonpayment holdover proceeding, tenant consented to the entry of a final judgment, with execution of the warrant stayed provided she paid her rent by the tenth day of the month during a two year probationary period. The documentary evidence shows that tenant obtained a money order for the June 2018 payment on June 7. However, because of a scrivener's error, the money order, which was in the correct amount, was made payable to A & E LLC, a variation of the name of landlord's managing agent, A & E Real Estate, and not landlord, 34 Hillside Avenue LLC. In consequence, payment was not timely received by landlord and tenant was evicted.

Tenant's obviously inadvertent error in inserting the wrong payee on the money order, which she timely purchased in the correct amount, is excusable pursuant to the court's supervisory power over enforcement of so-ordered stipulations (see Malvin v Schwartz, 65 AD2d 769 [1978], affd 48 NY2d 693 [1979]). Particularly in housing matters where a forfeiture of shelter is implicated, a default of this nature should be "measured against the harsh result which would obtain upon literal enforcement of the default provision in the stipulation" (Bank of New York v Forlini, 220 AD2d 377, 378 [1995]). In the circumstances, and given the long-term stabilized tenancy, tenant's disability, the absence of any demonstrated prejudice to landlord, and the proof that she has complied with her payment obligations during the period of the stay granted by this court, we favorably exercise our discretion to conditionally relieve tenant from her payment default (see Matter of Lafayette Boynton Hsg. Corp. v Pickett, 135 AD3d 518 [2016]; Harvey 1390 LLC v Bodenheim, 96 AD3d 664, 664 [2012]; 102-116 Eighth Ave. Assoc. v Oyola, 299 AD2d 296 [2002]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: January 28, 2019

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Malvin v. Schwartz
397 N.E.2d 748 (New York Court of Appeals, 1979)
Matter of Lafayette Boynton Hsg. Corp. v. Pickett
135 A.D.3d 518 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Malvin v. Schwartz
65 A.D.2d 769 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Bank of New York v. Forlini
220 A.D.2d 377 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
102-116 Eighth Avenue Associates, L.P. v. Oyola
299 A.D.2d 296 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 Hillside Ave., LLC v. Mateo, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/34-hillside-ave-llc-v-mateo-nyappterm-2019.