Even though courts loathe meddling with "stipulations of settlement" or other agreements reached within the context of litigation, they are occasionally compelled to do so.*
In a decision released on March 7, 2007, the Appellate Term, First Department, vacated an agreement made in a holdover case with an unrepresented tenant who mistakenly waived succession rights to a regulated unit.
Apparently, George Alamo, Jr., was unaware of his statutory right to stake an entitlement to remain in the unit as a regulated tenant in his own right.**
In 126 Bapaz, LLC v Alamo , here's how the AT rationalized its decision:
The record reveals the existence of a potentially meritorious succession defense on behalf of the first-named respondent, which should not be deemed forfeited by his uncounseled decision to consent to judgment. The trial court, which had charge of the proceeding since its inception, properly vacated the stipulation so that respondent, now represented by counsel, will have the opportunity to contest the holdover petition at trial. The court "possesses the discretionary power to relieve parties from the consequences of a stipulation effected during litigation upon such terms as it deems just and, if the circumstances warrant, it may exercise such power if it appears that the stipulation was entered into inadvisedly or that it would be inequitable to hold the parties to it."
Tread cautiously when negotiating settlements with the unrepresented. For as George Santayana correctly observed, "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."
For a copy of the Appellate Term's decision, please use this link: 126 Bapaz, LLC v Alamo
_____________________
*Use this link for our other blog posts on: Stipulations
**Use this link for our other blog posts on: Succession