Acceptance of ERAP Funds Didn't Reinstate an Expired Tenancy or Create New Tenancy

March 27, 2023

LVT Number: #32503

Landlord sued to evict an unregulated tenant after sending a 90-day nonrenewal/termination notice. Tenant asked the court to dismiss the case because landlord had accepted ERAP funds on tenant's behalf. The court ruled against tenant. The purpose of ERAP was not to reinstate expired tenancies or create new tenancies. Tenant had received the full benefit of a diminution of use and occupancy that landlord could seek in another forum, as well as a stay of her eviction for one year. That stay had now expired.

Landlord sued to evict an unregulated tenant after sending a 90-day nonrenewal/termination notice. Tenant asked the court to dismiss the case because landlord had accepted ERAP funds on tenant's behalf. The court ruled against tenant. The purpose of ERAP was not to reinstate expired tenancies or create new tenancies. Tenant had received the full benefit of a diminution of use and occupancy that landlord could seek in another forum, as well as a stay of her eviction for one year. That stay had now expired. And the fact that landlord failed to inform the court of tenant's ERAP application, in violation of AO 244/21, did not change the result here. There was no penalty for failing to comply with the Court's Administrative Order.

BOP MW Residential Mkt. LLC v. Lin: Index No. 304087/2020, 2023 NY Slip Op 23043 (Civ. Ct. NY; 2/10/23; Bacdayan, J)

Topics

More like this