Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Marc Finkelstein, J.), entered September 10, 2008. The order granted a motion by tenant seeking, in effect, to stay execution of a warrant of eviction.

ORDERED that the order is reversed without costs and tenant's motion seeking, in effect, to stay execution of the warrant of eviction is denied.

In this residential holdover proceeding, landlord and tenant, both represented by counsel, entered into a so-ordered stipulation in which tenant agreed to, among other things, remove and replace a jacuzzi bathtub which she had installed in violation of her lease. The stipulation required tenant to use a licensed contractor, who had to obtain the requisite building permits and carry insurance naming landlord as an additional insured. Among the other obligations imposed upon tenant by the stipulation was one requiring tenant to obtain landlord's written approval for the make and model of the replacement bathtub. The stipulation further provided that landlord would be entitled to seek a final judgment of possession based upon a breach by tenant of any of the terms of the stipulation. The parties subsequently entered into a second stipulation extending tenant's time to complete the removal and replacement work, but keeping the other terms of the stipulation in effect.

Prior to the deadline for tenant to fulfill her obligations pursuant to the second stipulation, [*2]landlord caused tenant to be served with a marshal's notice, which tenant moved to vacate. In its opposition to tenant's motion, landlord contended, among other things, that tenant had violated the terms of the stipulation in that tenant's plumbers had failed to name landlord as an additional insured, the permits sought by tenant's plumbers were insufficient, and tenant had not obtained landlord's approval for the replacement bathtub. The Civil Court granted tenant's motion, finding that tenant had complied with the "gravamen" of the stipulation, which was the removal and replacement of the jacuzzi bathtub, albeit not by the extended deadline set forth in the second stipulation. We reverse.

Settlement stipulations are favored and will not be undone absent proof that the settlement was obtained by fraud, collusion, mistake, accident or other ground sufficient to invalidate a contract (see e.g. Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224 [1984]; Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143 [1971]). The stipulations in this proceeding were highly detailed and executed by the attorneys for the respective parties. It is undisputed that tenant twice failed to meet the deadlines set forth in the stipulations for removing the bathtub. Moreover, tenant failed to comply with other material terms of the stipulations, including the requirement that her contractors carry insurance naming landlord as an additional insured (see e.g. Kinney v Lisk Co., 76 NY2d 215 [1990]; Britti Corp. v Perry Thompson Third LLC, 26 AD3d 235 [2006]; Kennelty v Darlind Constr., 260 AD2d 443 [1999]). In light of tenant's multiple breaches of the stipulations, her motion should have been denied.

Rios, J.P., Pesce and Golia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 22, 2010