I am a civil litigator who is representing a tenant in housing court on a pro-bono basis and I have a procedural question, as I am less familiar with the procedures in Housing Court. The landlord sued our client in 2014 for non-payment of rent, and we countered that necessary repairs had not been made. In 2015, we settled the case, paying the rent in exchange for a stipulation promising to make the repairs. The repairs were never made.
We recently filed an HP action based on the same repairs. We are planning to file a summary judgment motion for civil penalties, claiming that the 2015 settlement constitutes an "order" of the court to make repairs, and that civil penalties are owing from the date of the stipulation, regardless of how quickly the landlord makes repairs in the current matter. The landlord's attorney claimed that this was improper, and that we should have "opened up" the old case. In state supreme or federal court, we would never open up a closed case to sue on a breach of settlement; we would simply file a new action on the breach.
Has anyone experienced this? Any pitfalls? Does the landlord's lawyer have a point?