361 LLC v. Maureen Lupo, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant, and "Jane Doe," "John Doe," Respondents. (2026)

Per Curiam.

Order (Clinton J. Guthrie, J.), dated September 15, 2025, affirmed, with $10 costs.

We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of tenant's motion to vacate the two-attorney, so-ordered stipulation settling this nonpayment proceeding. No persuasive showing was made that the stipulation was tainted by "fraud, collusion, mistake or accident" (Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]), that the agreement was unconscionable or contrary to public policy (see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 302 [2002]), or that it would be inequitable or unfair to hold the parties to their bargain (see Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143, 150 [1971]). Tenant benefitted from the stipulation, since it vacated a default judgment and warrant of eviction and afforded her time to pay rent arrears, which totaled $27,950 at the time the stipulation was executed in April 2025.

Tenant's contention that the premises, which the nonpayment petition describes as exempt due to high-rent vacancy, are stabilized is insufficient to warrant vacatur of the stipulation. The DHCR records which tenant now relies upon to support her claim were in her possession at the time the stipulation was entered. Moreover, these records support the landlord's contention that the apartment is exempt from rent regulation based upon a high-rent vacancy that occurred in 2008. In the motion to vacate the stipulation, tenant offered no facts to challenge that high-rent vacancy, i.e., whether landlord's expenditures for individual apartment improvements were sufficient to bring the rent above the deregulation threshold then in effect. Tenant only relies upon an isolated (2016) registration of the apartment as rent stabilized, which is insufficient by itself to raise a genuine issue that the apartment is stabilized at this juncture (see Ruiz v Chwatt Assoc., 247 AD2d 308 [1998]; Cvek 446 E. 88th St. LLC v Fish, 67 Misc 3d 137[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50602[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2020]). "Rent stabilization coverage is a matter of statutory right and cannot be created by waiver or estoppel" (Trainer v State of NY Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 162 AD3d 461, 462 [2018][internal quotations marks and citations omitted]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: September 10, 2026