Term, Second Department decision, 2285 Ocean Associates v. Marina Shalyakhova and
Natalya Shalyakhova, No. 2005-1631, the lower court's decision was affirmed, the Appellate
Term stating: "The brief delay in proferring the entire amount due under the stipulation of
settlement resulted from agency error, since the agency mistakenly denied Tenant's application
for assistance. Hence, it would be unjust and inequitable to strictly enforce the terms of the
stipulation." (See: Moshe Realty LLC v. Grant, 10 Misc 3d 127A, 2005 NY Slip Op
51899[U], App. Term 2nd and 11th Jud. Dists; 1466 Gunhill Rd. Corp. v. Andrew, 4
Misc 3d 128A, 2004 NY Slip Op 50626 [U], App. Term 1st Dept.; see generally, Malvin v.
Schwartz, 65 AD2d 769 [1978], aff'd 48 NY2d 693 [1979]).
In 603-607 Realty Assoc. v. Gachelin, 2003 WL 21704407, 2003 Slip Op. 51105U,
App. Term 2nd and 11th Jud. Dists., the Appellate court found no basis to restore the tenant to
possession, ruling that the tenant's default was neither de minimis, inadvertent nor promptly
cured. The elements cited there are present in this proceeding. The $499.19 missed payment
herein was not the result of respondent's neglect. DSS, not the tenant, was responsible for that de
minimis payment. Was failure to make the payment remedied promptly? The Court responds in
the affirmative. Voluntary enrollment in the financial management program should help ensure
that no the problem will not recur (See also: Kew Gardens Assoc. LLC v. Ruvio, NYLJ,
December 8, 2004, p. 20, col. 3.
The Court declines to grant an award of costs or rent increase for restoring the premises.
[*4]The parties settled this matter through the HP action and
petitioner's agents are required by law to fulfill their legal obligation. Contrary to petitioner's