Tenants, as limited by their briefs, appeal from that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Michelle D. Schreiber, J.), dated February 18, 2011, which denied their motion to vacate a stipulation settling a holdover summary proceeding.
Present: HUNTER, JR., J.P., SHULMAN, TORRES, JJ.
Order (Michelle D. Schreiber, J.), reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted, final judgment vacated, and matter remanded to Civil Court for further proceedings.
This holdover summary proceeding, premised upon allegations that tenants' son engaged in criminal activity in the housing complex, was settled by way of a June 2010 so-ordered stipulation whose terms required the unrepresented tenant and his family to “voluntarily” vacate the demised apartment premises within two months. While a stipulation is essentially a contract and should not be lightly set aside, the court possesses the discretionary power to relieve parties from the consequences of a stipulation where, as here, it appears that the stipulation was entered into inadvisedly or improvidently ( see Matter of Frutiger, 29 N.Y.2d 143, 150  ). Tenants, now represented by counsel, have submitted documentary evidence tending to show the existence of possible defenses to landlord's possessory claim, including proof that the criminal charges brought against tenant's son—which formed the sole basis for landlord's eviction claim and which were alleged in the underlying March 2010 termination notice to be “currently pending”—were in fact dismissed in December 2009, with the record sealed ( see Scherer & Fisher, Residential Landlord–Tenant Law in N.Y. § 8:132 [2010–2011 ed] ). Under these circumstances, tenants' motion to vacate the stipulation should be granted so that tenants may defend the holdover petition on the merits.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.