Three of the leases relied on by petitioner to vitiate the jury demands herein expired before the commencement of these proceedings and each covers a rent-stabilized apartment. This court is aware of the substantial body of case law holding that the termination of a lease does not nullify a jury waiver clause in that lease. (See, e.g., Spevack v Breitman, 68 NYS2d 663; Clayman v Moelis, 28 NYS2d 196; Berdam Holding Corp. v *101Lieberman, 21 NYS2d 626.) Based on this principle, jury waiver clauses in expired leases have been projected into various types of holdover tenancies (see, e.g., Lera Realty Co. v Rich, 273 App Div 913; Fowler Ct. Tenants v Young, 119 Misc 2d 492), including those created by statute. (See, e.g., Jamaica Investors v Blacharsh, 193 Misc 949; 130 West 57 Corp. v Hyman, 188 Misc 92; Continental Mdse. Co. v Harris, 76 NYS2d 613.) While most of the reported cases involving jury waivers have arisen under rent control, the Rent Stabilization Law, applicable here, contains no explicit prohibition against projecting the terms of an i expired lease into a statutory tenancy. (Cf. Pierre v Williams, 106 Misc 2d 81.)