In Forty Central Park South v. Wadud -- a nonpayment case -- the New York City Civil Court refused to vacate a warrant of eviction or to relieve a tenant of the consequences of his non-compliance with a "so ordered" stipulation of settlement. On appeal, Appellate Term, First Department, affirmed.
When parties to a summary proceeding wish to amicably resolve all or some of the issues in a dispute, they enter into an agreement known as a stipulation. The majority of these documents are handwritten on forms available in most courtrooms and are "so ordered" by the presiding judge or judicial hearing officer. In nonpayment cases, these agreements will minimally contain a breakdown of the rent due, list a payment schedule, provide a timetable for any repair obligations, and, will reserve remedies (such as the tenant's eviction) in the event of a party's breach or default.
Viewed as efficient dispute resolution mechanisms, these agreements are stringently enforced (in the absence of some substantial irregularity). Fraud, collusion, or mistake are commonly cited as reasons for annulling the arrangement, but the party seeking to be relieved of the contract's terms has the burden of establishing the existence of one or more of these grounds.
As Wadud reinforces, courts will typically avoid recrafting an agreement's terms "based upon the principle that the parties to a civil dispute are free to chart their own litigation course."
So, chart carefully.
For a copy of the Appellate Term's decision in Forty Central Park South v. Wadud, please use the following link: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2007/2007_50281.htm