LLC v. LLC (2026)

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

By notice of petition and petition dated May 17, 2024, landlord commenced this commercial nonpayment proceeding seeking possession and $38,757.30 in rent arrears. In a stipulation of settlement dated July 24, 2024, the parties agreed that $57,456.96 was outstanding and that tenant would pay $13,000 towards the arrears by the 15th of each month (with the July payment due upon execution of the stipulation) along with all ongoing obligations under the lease. Following four defaults, a final judgment was entered and a warrant was issued which was executed on December 30, 2024.

By notice of motion dated January 22, 2025, tenant moved to vacate the final judgment and warrant, and to be restored to possession. Tenant argued that the warrant should not have been executed because the final judgment, along with all other payment obligations under the lease, had been satisfied before the warrant was executed. In opposition, landlord argued, among other things, that the Justice Court does not have jurisdiction to vacate the warrant following an eviction, admitting that tenant had a zero balance on December 16, 2024. By order dated February 10, 2025, the Justice Court (Alejandra Silva, J.) denied tenant's motion.

RPAPL 749 (3) states in pertinent part:

"Nothing contained herein shall deprive the court of the power to stay or vacate such warrant for good cause shown prior to the execution thereof, or to restore the tenant to possession subsequent to execution of the warrant. In a judgment for non-payment of rent, the court shall vacate a warrant upon tender or deposit with the court of the full rent due at any time prior to its execution, unless the petitioner establishes that the tenant withheld the rent due in bad faith."

Here, it is undisputed that tenant had a zero balance two weeks before the warrant was executed on December 30, 2024. Therefore, barring a meritorious showing of bad faith, the warrant was subject to vacatur prior to its execution (see RPAPL 749 [3]). However, tenant's motion to vacate was made after the warrant had been executed, and tenant has not demonstrated any basis to vacate the final judgment. While the Justice Court retained jurisdiction to restore tenant to possession subsequent to the execution of the warrant pursuant to RPAPL 749 (3), we do not find that such relief was warranted here.

The agreement in this case was negotiated by sophisticated parties who were represented by counsel. Tenant repeatedly defaulted under the agreement and the defaults were neither inadvertent nor trivial. Under these circumstances, "[s]trict enforcement of the parties' stipulation . . . is warranted based upon the principle that parties to a civil dispute are free to chart their own litigation course" (191 St. Assoc. LLC v Cruz, 50 Misc 3d 137[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50116[U], *2 [App Term, 1st Dept 2016] [internal quotation marks omitted], affd sub nom. Matter of 1621 St. Nicholas Ave Owners LLC v Cruz, 146 AD3d 409 [2017]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

WALSH, J.P., CONWAY and VAZQUEZ-DOLES, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Jennifer Chan

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: August 20, 2026