DECISION/ORDER The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number 13-25 (motion no. 1) were read on this motion to dismiss the petition. The notice of termination on which this holdover summary eviction proceeding is predicated is dated December 29, 2022, but the affidavit of service thereof alleges it was served on January 11, 2023. At some point before or after that date, Petitioner offered Respondent a rent-stabilized renewal lease dated December 31, 2022. The lease was fully-executed by both parties in April 2023, several months after the termination date of January 20, 2023. Based on this lease agreement the termination was vitiated and the petition must be dismissed (Carroll St. Prop. v. Puente, NYLJ, July 13, 2025, c. 30, p. 6 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005]). In Carroll St., the lower court had granted the tenant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition in a holdover based on breach of a rent-stabilized lease (Carroll St. Prop. v. Puente, 4 Misc 3d 896 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2004]). While the landlord’s appeal was pending, it offered the tenant a renewal lease, which was signed by the tenant and countersigned by landlord (Carroll St. Prop., NYLJ, July 13, 2025). The Appellate Term held that the parties’ execution of a renewal lease vitiated the termination notice and mooted the landlord’s appeal, where the lease “did not expressly preserve landlord’s rights in this litigation” (id.). Stepping Stones Assoc. v. Seymour (48 AD3d 581 [2d Dept 2008]) does not require a different result. In that case, the landlord and tenant had fully executed a lease after after the issuance of the warrant of eviction. Under the law in effect at the time, issuance of the warrant of eviction terminated the landlord-tenant relationship. After the parties signed a new, post-warrant lease, “the tenant’s right to possession was thereafter predicated upon the renewal lease” and therefore “the landlord could not longer seek possession of the premises on the basis of the tenant’s default under the previous lease” (id. at 583-584). Contrary to the description by the court in Grandview Park Assoc., LLC v. Lundy (64 Misc 3d 914 [City Ct, Mount Vernon 2019]), the Stepping Stones court did not “already determine[] that if a landlord is required to send a lease renewal per the ETPA regulation, then sending same does not vitiate a notice of termination.” Instead, the court explicitly declined to decide that issue: “Since the landlord was under no compulsion here to offer a renewal lease, we need not decide whether the making of such an offer under compulsion of the ETPA has the effect of defeating the landlord’s claim to possession by reason of the tenant’s breach of the prior lease” (Stepping Stones Assoc., 48 AD3d at 584). In any event, here Petitioner did not simply offer a renewal lease, it also countersigned and returned the lease, without any reservation of rights required by Carroll St. Prop. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion is granted and the petition is dismissed, based on the parties’ execution of a renewal lease after the expiration of the notice of termination. The court reaches no other issue. This is the court’s decision and order. Dated: November 13, 2023
