361 West 121st Housing Dev. Fund Corp. v. Frazier

26 Misc. 3d 46
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedDecember 1, 2009
StatusPublished

This text of 26 Misc. 3d 46 (361 West 121st Housing Dev. Fund Corp. v. Frazier) 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
361 West 121st Housing Dev. Fund Corp. v. Frazier, 26 Misc. 3d 46 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order dated October 23, 2008, reversed, without costs, and tenants’ motion granted to the extent of staying execution of the warrant.

After tendering the full amount ($9,384.09) of the maintenance arrears found to have been due landlord upon the trial of the underlying nonpayment summary proceeding, tenants entered into a so-ordered stipulation consenting to the reentry of a final judgment, with execution of the warrant stayed on specified conditions. The stipulation required tenants to pay landlord’s counsel fees (denominated as additional rent in the governing proprietary lease agreement) of $13,250 in 16 monthly installments due the first day of each month, as well as accruing maintenance as it became due, with time of the essence. Tenants’ initial October 2008 installment payment for attorney’s fees, apparently processed via tenants’ bank’s on-line banking system, was $8.13 short and was not transferred to landlord’s bank account until after landlord’s issuance of a default notice on October 6.

In these circumstances, and in the absence of any serious claim that tenants materially breached the base rent requirements set forth in the stipulation, tenants’ lapse in connection with the stipulation’s attorney’s fee component should be excused 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[s] which would obtain upon literal enforcement of the default pro[48]*48vision in the stipulation” (Bank of N.Y. v Forlini, 220 AD2d 377, 378 [1995]; see also 2246 Holding Corp. v Nolasco, 52 AD3d 377 [2008]). We note that, so far as shown, tenants have complied with their payment obligations during the period of the stay granted by this court.

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

Related

Levandusky v. One Fifth Avenue Apartment Corp.
553 N.E.2d 1317 (New York Court of Appeals, 1990)
Malvin v. Schwartz
397 N.E.2d 748 (New York Court of Appeals, 1979)
2246 Holding Corp. v. Nolasco
52 A.D.3d 377 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
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)
Mill Rock Plaza Associates v. Lively
224 A.D.2d 301 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 Misc. 3d 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/361-west-121st-housing-dev-fund-corp-v-frazier-nyappterm-2009.