In the case of a “pay-and-go” consent judgment between a landlord and her previous tenants, an appellate court in a published decision affirmed a ruling that the landlord doesn’t owe additional money to the tenants based on their claimed costs for lining the property’s swimming pool.

The Appellate Division on Monday said it backed the trial court’s rejection of the tenants’ counterclaim for pool damages because it was based on a claim then known to the tenants, which they should have raised during the negotiations that led to the pay-and-go judgment.