defeat Landlord's claims, or to obtain an abatement of her rent. Specifically, Tenant
claims that her apartment was in need of serious and numerous repairs, including: a hole
in the wall of her daughter's bedroom, which renders it unusable; defective fire escape
window; mold and mildew surrounding bedroom windows; a broken dishwasher; mold
throughout the kitchen; roach infestation; and peeling bathroom paint.
In opposition to the motion, Landlord argues that Tenant's motion should be
denied because she entered into the Stipulations freely, knowingly and voluntarily, and
never mentioned the need for any repairs to her apartment. Since she entered into seven
separate Stipulations, Landlord maintains that she should not be permitted to disavow all
those properly allocuted and court-approved Stipulations. This Court agrees.
It is well settled that a stipulation of settlement between parties on a pending
proceeding is a binding contract enforceable by the court and, as such, they are favored
and "will not be lightly cast aside" (Hallock v New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230
[1984]; see Matter of Galasso, 35 NY2d 319, 321 [1974]). Only where there is a
legally sufficient cause to invalidate a contractual obligation, such as where it is
manifestly unfair to one party because of the other's overreaching or where its terms are
unconscionable or constitute fraud, collusion, mistake or accident, will a party be
relieved from the consequences of the bargain struck with the stipulation (see Matter
of Matinzi v Joy, 60 NY2d 835, 386 [1983]; Barzin v Barzin, 158 AD2d
769, 770 [1990], lv dismissed 77 NY2d 834 [1991]; Bussing v Caligiuri,
65 AD2d 764 [1978]). More than mere allegations are required, however, since