Pardy v. Bradshaw
Oct. 18, 2006

Appellate Court:

Trial Court:
Supreme Court, Westchester County

Trial Judge:
Justice LaCava

Type of Action or Proceeding:
Plenary Action -- Damage to Leasehold

Issues/Legal Principles:
The court held that a "so ordered" stipulation between the parties containing a release from all liability was binding and resolved all damage claims.

Source:
NYLJ, 32:1, Oct. 18, 2006

Referred Statutes:
none cited

Summary:
Landlord commenced an action for damages against the former tenants following their vacatur pursuant to a "so ordered" stipulation of settlement. The stipulation was negotiated by attorneys for both parties in settlement of the landlord's non-payment proceeding against the tenants. After the landlord retook possession, he claimed that there was extensive damage to the subject house and sued for over $20,000 in damages. At trial, the landlord presented numerous photographs of the alleged damages. Tenants argued that notwithstanding the landlord's claims, the stipulation released them from further liability.

A reading of the stipulation reveals that in one paragraph, it sets forth that tenants are to leave the premises "broom clean" with no damage beyond normal wear and tear. However, in a following pararaph, the stipulation contained a release clause, which sets forth that in consideration of the landlord's retention of the security deposit, he liquidates any claim for damage to the premises. The landlord argued that as the tenant failed to comply with the provision requiring a broom clean surrender, the liquidated damages clause was of no effect. Tenant argued that the landlord's release was clear and unambigous.

The Court held that the stipulation and the release are both contracts and that the law favors stipulations. Unless a stipulation is invalid due to fraud, collusion, mistake, accident, duress, or unconscionability, or is contrary to public policy or ambiguity suggesting the words did not represent the agreement, parties will not be relieved from the consequences. The Court further held that the release provision at issue was "clear and unambigous" and as a result, added a greater dimension to the settlement.

In further support of its decision, the Court held that the landlord failed to exercise his right to inspect the premises prior to the execution of the stipulation and that no reasonable excuse was offered for such a failure. The Court opined that had the landlord conducted a prior inspection, the massive debris and structural damage would have been discovered prior to signing. Further, the Court held that the landlord failed to include an explicit reservation of rights prior to signing the release. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the landlord's complaint for damages.

Notes:

Decision:

About HCD

NYC Housing Court
When you get legal papers, go here to see how Housing Court is supposed to work.

The Legal System
Some perspective might help in court.

Self Help: Nolo Press
Selected articles from Nolo Press

Other Sources
PrairieLaw House/Home Channel

City-Wide Task Force on Housing Court Housing Court Fact Sheets