In the instant matter, the March 1, 2007 Stipulation in which Mr. Clark voluntarily agreed to vacate the premises by July 1, 2007 renders this subsequent attempt to receive a Stay from the eviction action moot. Although Mr. Clark is a pro se litigant, and perhaps requires additional understanding in his acceptance of the Stipulation, at the time when he agreed to the Stipulation, Mr. Lippa informed him on numerous occasions of his options in regards to an Article 78 appeal. Mr. Clark clearly set out to reserve only his "rights and claims with respect to the contested $1,403.45 balance owed" in the self-written, signed Stipulation that he freely and voluntarily entered into. Furthermore, in each prior proceeding Mr. Lippa informed Mr. Clark of his options, before he agreed and signed to the conditions in the Stipulation. Additionally, [*5]Mr. Clark does not assert a lack of understanding in his attempt to receive an Article 78 proceeding, and it would therefore be procedurally improper to grant him an exception based on a lack of understanding as to the consequences of the Stipulation.
Furthermore, because this court finds that Mr. Clark is bound by the Stipulation, the respondent's arguments that the action is barred by collateral estoppel, res judicata and waiver are also valid. The issue of eviction was clearly raised in the Holdover preceding that led to the Stipulation, and the pending petition seeks to stay such eviction, which would clearly impair the respondent's already established rights.