agreements. On its face, the Stipulations' "uncomplex and unremarkable terms
represented an equitable and balanced surrender of interests" and there is nothing unduly
harsh or unjust about the stipulated provisions, "which, if proved, would implicate the
stipulations' validity" (Poplar
Realty v Po, 3 Misc 3d 22, 24 [AT 1st [*4]2003]). To the contrary, Tenant was granted time-and-again
more time to pay the significant, accumulated arrears (see FD-HFZ W. 44th LP v
Wilson, 11 Misc 3d at 134[A]). In accordance with the foregoing as well as the
strong public policy favoring enforcement of settlements, this Court finds no grounds to
relieve Tenant from the consequences of the bargained for Stipulations.
Nor has Tenant sufficiently established an entitlement for leave to amend her
Answer at this late stage of the proceedings. Tenant is essentially seeking to amend her
Answer to assert a warranty of habitability claim in order to obtain rent abatements.
Although leave to amend pleadings should be liberally granted pursuant to CPLR
3025(b), it is within the court's discretion to grant the same. Under the extant
circumstances, Landlord would be prejudiced by the addition of this defense so late in
the proceeding since there already has been a Final Judgment, which has been reaffirmed
by Tenant and Landlord on no less than seven separate occasions, and which this Court is
declining to vacate. Tellingly, in none of Tenant's seven orders to show cause was there
ever a mention of any repairs required in Tenant's apartment and, in fact, in the first
Stipulation of Settlement executed by the parties on June 4, 2012, Tenant specifically
agreed that "no repairs" were needed in her apartment. Tenant has failed to state with