Landlord and Tenant Dispute Meaning of Settlement Agreement

Landlord sued to evict tenant from two-bedroom apartment for nonpayment of rent. Tenant's rent was $215 per month. Landlord and tenant signed a settlement agreement in court. Tenant paid the back rent due, and landlord agreed that tenant could remain in the apartment until an acceptable one-bedroom apartment became available in the building. After stating that tenant would not unreasonably refuse to relocate, the agreement said that "It is agreed that tenant's rent in the subject premises shall be 30 percent of his income or $215 per month, whichever is higher. Tenant's rent is currently $215 per month." Landlord later offered tenant a one-bedroom apartment, but claimed that the rent should be $887 per month. Tenant claimed that the settlement agreement called for his new rent to remain $215 per month. He asked the court to reform the agreement to clarify this.
The court ruled for tenant. Landlord appealed and won, in part. The court can't reform the lease because tenant didn't ask to add terms inadvertently omitted from the agreement or to remove terms inadvertently inserted in the document. What tenant really sought was an interpretation of the agreement. A hearing was needed to determine what the parties meant by "subject premises" when they signed the settlement agreement. Tenant claimed that it meant the one-bedroom apartment he would move into, while landlord claimed that it referred only to the two-bedroom apartment that tenant then lived in.

239 East 115th Street HDFC v. Olunkunle: NYLJ, 9/8/10, p. 26, col. 2 (App. T 1 Dept.; McKeon, PJ, Shulman, Hunter, JJ)