STIPULATION VACATED BECAUSE TENANT WAS "UNINFORMED"
In the case of 420 E. **th LLC v C*, the Appellate Term, First Department, affirmed a lower court’s decision to vacate a settlement agreement in a dispute involving a parking space in a residential building.
The tenant, who originally appeared without a lawyer, had agreed to a settlement with the landlord. When later represented by counsel, the tenant sought to undo that agreement. The New York County Civil Court allowed it, reasoning that the agreement may have been entered into without fully understanding the rights at stake.
The tenant presented valid arguments that the parking spot might have been part of a broader rental arrangement tied to a relative's regulated lease, and that the relative’s estate should have been officially included in the proceeding. (She also claimed a "succession" entitlement to that relative's unit.) These defenses, if meritorious, could affect the outcome and were never fully considered when the tenant agreed to settle the case. Because of this, the court decided it would be unfair to enforce the original agreement without giving her a proper chance to raise those points.
By affirming that decision on appeal, the AT1 didn’t rule on who should ultimately prevail—it simply agreed that the tenant deserved her day in court, especially given the procedural disadvantages she faced when she first consented to judgment without legal guidance.
They ended up parking themselves right back in Civil Court.
# # #
DECISION