ROXBOROUGH APARTMENTS CORP v. HUSSEIN (2018)

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York.

ROXBOROUGH APARTMENTS CORP., Petitioner-Landlord v. Maher HUSSEIN, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.

570685 /17

Decided: September 21, 2018

PRESENT: Shulman, P.J., Cooper, Edmead, JJ.

Order (Jack Stoller, J.), dated October 10, 2017, affirmed, with $10 costs.

We find unavailing tenant's assertion that his former attorney lacked authority to enter into the July 7, 2017, two-attorney, so-ordered stipulation settling the underlying nonpayment summary proceeding. “Assuming arguendo that [the attorney] lacked the real authority to do so, as a matter of law, [he was] certainly clothed with apparent authority and the [landlord] reasonably relied upon that appearance of authority” (1420 Concourse Corp. v. Cruz, 175 AD2d 747, 749 [1991], citing Hallock v. State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 231 [1984] ). In this regard, counsel had already been representing tenant since at least April 2017, when he moved to adjourn the scheduled trial due to the hospitalization of tenant's initial counsel, and subsequently negotiated the underlying stipulation in open court.

Nor was any persuasive showing made that the stipulation was tainted by fraud, mutual mistake or any other basis for voiding a contract (see Hallock v. State of New York, 64 NY2d at 230).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network