Kistoo v Spence
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Personal injury (lead paint) and landlord-tenant possession/eviction via settlement enforcement
Denied the administrators’ motion to enforce the written settlement and to issue a judgment of possession and warrant of eviction.
The denial of the motion to enforce the settlement and to issue a judgment of possession and a warrant of eviction.
Under CPLR 2104 [settlement agreements are binding if in writing and subscribed by the party or the party’s attorney], the signed settlement was enforceable; the plaintiff received the $10,000 payment and failed to vacate within 30 days, and there was no showing of fraud, duress, overreaching, or mistake.
Background
Plaintiff Peter Kistoo, individually and as parent and natural guardian of his child, sued Trevor R. Spence, Trevor’s estate, and Hilda I. Davis Spence alleging the child suffered injuries from lead-based paint exposure in an apartment owned by the defendants. On November 2, 2022, the plaintiff and counsel for the estate administrators executed a written settlement resolving the plaintiff’s individual claims. The agreement required the plaintiff and his family to vacate the apartment within 30 days after receiving $10,000 and included his consent to an order of eviction if he failed to do so. The plaintiff received payment on November 10, 2022, but did not vacate. The administrators moved in March 2023 to enforce the settlement and for issuance of a judgment of possession and a warrant of eviction. The plaintiff did not oppose.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the administrators’ motion to enforce the settlement and, in effect, to issue a judgment of possession and a warrant of eviction.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed, granted the administrators’ motion to enforce the settlement, and remitted for issuance of a judgment of possession and a warrant of eviction. The court held the writing satisfied CPLR 2104 and the record showed payment was made and the plaintiff failed to vacate, with no basis to invalidate the contract.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that a written, subscribed settlement under CPLR 2104 is strictly enforceable, including provisions requiring a party to vacate premises and consenting to eviction upon breach, absent proof of contract-invalidating grounds.
A signed settlement that meets CPLR 2104’s requirements will be enforced according to its terms, and courts will order possession and eviction where a party accepts consideration but fails to perform as agreed.