Decision – Ramrattan v. Paye

I know that I promised a follow-up Blog on the practical effects of Real Property Law §227-C (which allows a tenant to terminate a lease based upon domestic violence), but I saw a Decision today and could not resist commenting.

The case is Ramrattan v. Paye, and was decided by the Appellate Term, for the 2nd, 11th and 13thJudicial Districts, which covers parts of New York City. In Westchester, we are covered by 9thJudicial District.

In Ramrattan, an elderly tenant had been sued for unpaid rent, which likely means that the tenant had already moved out of the subject apartment or had been evicted. The tenant had an attorney and entered into a Stipulation of Settlement for the amounts owed. After a time, the tenant could not make the required payments and asked the Civil Court to undo the Stipulation, claiming that her attorney had not explained all of the terms adequately to her, and that she had been unable to understand the import of the agreement. The Civil Court denied the motion and the tenant appealed.

In denying the appeal, the Appellate Term cited fairly well-established cases that have held that Stipulations of Settlement are favored and it take a great showing to set one aside. The Appellate Term also found that the tenant did not meet the burden on a claim of insufficient assistance of counsel. Lastly, the Appellate Term was not moved by the tenant’s reliance upon her advanced age.

This Appellate Term Decision would be wonderful news to landlords who enter into Stipulations of Settlement with tenants in non-payment proceedings, only to have the tenant bring on potentially multiple Orders to Show Cause after having breached by not making the payments. Under Ramrattan it should not matter that the tenant finally has finally obtained money to pay something – – in many instances not even enough to get current on the Stipulation, as though there had not been a breach in the first place. The Stipulation is the Stipulation is the Stipulation.

However, I suspect that the Appellate Term would not be so willing to turn away a tenant who is also facing eviction by having breached a Stipulation of Settlement, but would likely cut that tenant a large swath of slack. We will see . . .