50 Misc. 3d 13
N.Y. App. Term.2015Background
- Tenant Andrea Richburg and landlord entered a stipulation in May 2009 permanently excluding tenant’s son from the apartment/building/property.
- About 2½ years later landlord moved for leave to execute a warrant of eviction, alleging the son had been residing or visiting the premises regularly.
- At hearing, evidence showed one short, unannounced visit by the son to tenant’s door to discuss funeral arrangements; tenant denied admitting him inside, landlord’s witness said he did enter briefly.
- Landlord’s witness also testified to seeing the son on the large complex a few times, sometimes with the tenant, but evidence did not clearly show tenant facilitated those visits.
- Landlord had hired the son after the stipulation to work on the grounds and the son worked on the property for several months, including going inside buildings and apartments.
- Civil Court granted landlord’s motion to evict; the appellate court reversed and denied leave to execute the warrant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tenant violated the stipulation by allowing her son access, justifying eviction | Landlord: son visited/resided on premises and tenant facilitated entry, breaching the stipulation and endangering others | Tenant: one short, unannounced visit only; she did not admit him; other sightings do not prove she facilitated access | Reversed: landlord failed to prove a violation sufficient to terminate tenancy |
| Whether strict enforcement of stipulation is required despite de minimis or insubstantial breaches | Landlord: strict enforcement necessary to protect resident safety | Tenant: short, isolated incident and no evidence of invitation; landlord’s own conduct (hiring son) undermines strict application | Court: courts may relieve strict enforcement; here breach (if any) was de minimis and relief from strict enforcement appropriate |
| Whether landlord’s safety interest compels exclusion when landlord previously employed the excluded person | Landlord: safety interest overrides past employment | Tenant: landlord’s hiring and permitting the son on property weakens claim of necessary total exclusion | Held: landlord’s prior employment of the son undermined its claim for absolute exclusion |
| Standard for vacating or enforcing settlement stipulations in housing context | Landlord: stipulations are enforceable and breach warrants eviction | Tenant: stipulations may be relaxed when strict enforcement is unjust or breach is minimal | Court: settlements favored but subject to court supervision; relief proper where substantial compliance and default is de minimis |
Key Cases Cited
- Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224 (1984) (settlement agreements generally enforced; relief only for grounds invalidating contract)
- Matter of Frutiger, 29 N.Y.2d 143 (1971) (same principle that stipulations are favored)
- Malvin v. Schwartz, 65 A.D.2d 769 (1978) (aff’d 48 N.Y.2d 693) (court-ordered stipulations are subject to court supervision)
- Weitz v. Murphy, 241 A.D.2d 547 (1997) (courts may relieve strict enforcement when unjust or inequitable)
- Matter of Vega v. Franco, 277 A.D.2d 131 (2000) (distinguishes invited or acquiesced entry from mere presence; de minimis breaches)