The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document numbers 67-71; 76-82, were read on this motion to restore this proceeding to the court’s calendar. DECISION/ORDER This holdover proceeding, which was predicated on allegations that Respondent was violating substantial obligations of her rent stabilized tenancy, was settled on February 17, 2023. The two-attorney stipulation addressed the breach-of-lease claims specifically. It also addressed payment of use and occupancy which had accrued during the proceeding, and Respondent becoming current on renewal leases, but as to these matters, it provided only that a party could seek appropriate relief in case of default. In the stipulation, the parties agreed that $84,005.05 was owed, which was addressed in three portions: $39,509.41 was to be paid within two weeks, and $29,572.12 was to be paid within 45 days, which left a balance of $13,990.80. After a provisional approval in November 2021, that amount was approved and apparently paid by ERAP in April 2022, and the “Check Application Status” webpage for New York State ERAP states that payment was canceled. Petitioner’s motion states that Petitioner “could not agree to the conditions of the ERAP” without elaborating. ERAP was established to ameliorate the “deleterious social and public health effects of homelessness and housing instability” in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic (L 2021, ch 417 §2), and it was designed to disincentivize landlords from rejecting funds that would prevent the eviction of their tenants. The statute provides that “if the landlord has not accepted…provisional payment within twelve months of the determination the landlord shall be deemed to have waived the amount of rent covered by such provisional payment.” (L 2021, ch 56, part BB, subpart A, §9(2)(c)). Petitioner chose not to accept ERAP and has therefore waived its ability to collect the $13,990.80 which was provisionally approved. As to Petitioner’s umbrella request in this motion to restore this proceeding to the court’s calendar, the court is guided by the principal that “the law requires strict construction of language in written instruments that could work a forfeiture” (133 Plus 24 Sanford Ave. Realty Corp. v. Ni, 47 Misc 3d 55 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th, & 13th Jud Dists 2015], citing Lerner v. Johnson, 167 AD2d 372 [2d Dept 1990]). This is applicable in a situation where a stipulation of settlement provides only that the case may be restore for “appropriate relief” (347 Lincoln Realty LLC v. Doe, 2022 NY Slip Op 34453[U] [Civ Ct, Kings County 2022]). The stipulation here does not specify any relief that the court could grant upon restoration of this case, except as to an allegation that Respondent had breached paragraph 3, which is not the basis for this motion. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion is denied. This is the court’s decision and order. Dated: November 24, 2023
