88 AVE. REALTY DE LLC v. Castro, 2022 NY Slip Op 22168 – NY: City Court, Civil Court 2022:
“Judicial discretion to decline to approve a stipulation is within the fundamental powers of the judiciary.[2] A stipulation cannot go beyond the subject matter jurisdiction of the Housing Court as provided in New York City Civil Court Act §110.
When a “two attorney stipulation” is presented to the Housing Court is that the end of the inquiry? Does it mean that the Housing Court must approve a stipulation because it’s a “two attorney stipulation?” Is the Housing Court expected to act as a rubber stamp? Should the Housing Court accept and approve an admission of a penal law without regard to the rights of the accused under the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the State of New York? If it did so, does that mean that a respondent can now be treated as a defendant and the Housing Court should engage in allocution of a guilty plea? What does a guilty plea or admission of the penal law mean when accomplished through the Housing Court? Can such a guilty plea result in the eventual sentence and incarceration of the respondent? Does this mean that Housing Court is a place where litigators can bypass the protocol of entering a guilty plea under the penal law?
Courts are aware that protocols must be followed upon entering a guilty plea. A plea agreement under the penal law must be approved by the court. People v. Harris, 61 NY2d 9 (1983); People v Pellegrino, 26 NY3d 1063 (2015). The trial judge accepting a guilty plea has the vital responsibility to make sure that the accused has full understanding of what the plea means and its consequences. Waiver of a guilty plea allocution would be contrary to public policy. Most recently on April 20, 2022, in People v. Mothersell, 2022 NY Slip Op 02661, the Appellate Division wrote, “A trial court is constitutionally required to ensure that a defendant, before entering a guilty plea, has a full understanding of what the plea entails and its consequences” citing (People v Belliard, 20 NY3d 381, [2013]; People v Streber, 145 AD3d 1531, 1532, [4th Dept 2016]). See also, Riverside Syndicate, Inc. v. Munroe, 10 NY3d 18 (2008), finding that a stipulation waiving Rent Stabilization cannot be enforced as it is contrary to public policy.
As the stipulation contains paragraphs and admissions which are potentially incompatible with the Constitution of the United States and the State of New York, the Court declines to approve the stipulation. The stipulation that was filed cannot be accepted by the Court. Nor can the Court deconstruct the stipulation and parse out parts that are proper or improper.
The Housing Court is not authorized to hear allegations under the penal law that would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This allegation is simply beyond the jurisdictional mandates of the Housing Court.
—–
[2] Both in the Federal and State Courts, judicial review to disallow agreements which are not authorized by law has been affirmed and approved by the appellate courts. See, In re Purdue Pharma, L.P., 635 B.R. 26 (U.S.D.C., Southern District Dec. 16, 2021) appeal pending U.S. Court of Appeals 2nd Circuit; Wright v. Brockett, 150 Misc 2d 1031 (Sup. Ct 1991); See also, Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (U.S.C. A. 2nd Circuit August 7, 2015.)”