150 15 FLUSHING LLC v. BATISTA (2018)

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this holdover proceeding, the parties entered into a two-attorney so-ordered stipulation of settlement in which it was agreed that landlord would issue a two-year lease renewal at the monthly rate of $1,500. In support of a motion to vacate the stipulation based on a claim of mutual mistake, landlord's attorney claimed that he had misunderstood his client's instructions. The Civil Court denied the motion. On appeal, landlord contends that its attorney lacked actual or apparent authority to enter into the stipulation.

“A stipulation of settlement made by counsel in open court may bind his client even where it exceeds his actual authority” (Hallock v. State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 228 [1984] ). Here, the same law firm had represented landlord throughout the proceeding, including at several court appearances, signed a stipulation of adjournment, appeared on landlord's behalf on the adjourned date, and negotiated and signed a two-attorney, so-ordered stipulation. As landlord failed to demonstrate the absence of apparent authority (see generally Uniform Rules for NY City Civ. Ct. [22 NYCRR] § 208.22 [requiring the attendance at pretrial calendars of attorneys “who are authorized to act”] ), the order is affirmed (see Hallock, 64 NY2d 224).

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.