[Civ Ct, Richmond County 2002]). Judge Straniere found where the landlord, not the tenant, sought to invoke the terms of the RSC in order to hold the tenant responsible for the entire year's rent once the tenant held over into a new term, it was a perversion of the Rent Stabilization Code (id. at *2)—a code, the court explained, that was designed to protect tenant's rights (id.). The remedy available to defendant when claimant did not vacate the premises at the end of his lease was to begin an action for possession pursuant to RSC § 2523.5 (c) (3), which defendant did not do. This court cannot infer a remedy of a deemed renewal where the law does not provide one.
The Appellate Term in Samson Mgt. specifically noted that it need not reach the issue of whether an implied agreement for a{**29 Misc 3d at 839} new lease can be found to exist where a rent-stabilized tenant who fails to sign a renewal lease holds over and yet pays the new higher rent set forth in the unsigned renewal lease without any other communication between the parties (see 28 Misc 3d at 33). Here, the claimant also paid the higher rent after his lease expired, however, he provided Ralph Ave with notice that he would vacate and not renew the lease. The claimant's communicated intent to vacate coupled with his statement to the defendant that he would not renew vitiates any implied agreement otherwise.