M&E CHRISTOPHER LLC, pet-land-app, v. JASON GODFREY, res-tent-res -AND- NEREIDA GODFREY, res-und-res -AND- “JOHN DOE” AND “JANE DOE,” res-und

15-421. M&E CHRISTOPHER LLC, pet-land-app, v. JASON GODFREY, res-tent-res -AND- NEREIDA GODFREY, res-und-res -AND- “JOHN DOE” AND “JANE DOE,” res-und — Order (Peter M. Wendt, J.), entered June 15, 2015, affirmed, with $10 costs.

This holdover proceeding, based upon allegations that tenant’s right to occupy the unregulated apartment expired upon the termination of his monthly tenancy, was correctly dismissed on tenant’s summary judgment motion. The record establishes, and landlord conceded at oral argument, that the apartment is subject to rent stabilization. The former version of Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) §2526.1(a)(3)(iii), previously relied upon by landlord, does not support a finding that the apartment was deregulated. The language of that section “necessarily presumes that the first tenant after a vacancy [or temporary exemption] is offered a rent stabilized lease” (Gordon v. 305 Riverside Corp., 93 AD3d 590, 592 [2012]), a contingency which was not satisfied here (see also Goldman v. Malagic, 45 Misc 37, 39-40 [App Term, 1st Dept 2014]), since the lease tendered by landlord after the expiration of the temporary exemption — tenant’s initial, March 21, 2005, lease — explicitly stated that the apartment was not subject to rent regulation (see also Goldman v. Malagic, 45 Misc 3d 37, 39-40 [App Term, 1st Dept 2014]).