ERAP; see generally L 2021, ch 56, § 1, part BB, § 1, subpart A, as amended by L 2021, ch 417, § 2, part A.) According to petitioner's attorney's affirmation in opposition, "the ERAP benefits were received by the [p]etitioner on April 27, 2022. Ledger annexed as Exhibit B."[FN1] (NYSCEF Doc No. 11, [*2]petitioner's atty affirmation ¶ 10.)
Arguments
Respondent has moved to dismiss the proceeding, arguing that petitioner was foreclosed from "seeking to evict" respondents by service of a notice of nonrenewal of lease during the 12-month period commencing with the acceptance of ERAP funds. (NYSCEF Doc No. 8, notice of mot [mot seq 1].) Respondent initially cites to Liadi v Kaba (78 Misc 3d 1209[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 50187[U] [Civ Ct, Queens County 2023]) in support of his argument. The Kaba court held that "[t]he act of initiating an eviction within the 12-month period, effectively undermines the plain reading of the statute and the obligation not to evict." (2023 NY Slip Op 50187[U], *2.) In Kaba, the court construed the ERAP statute as prohibiting even "[t]he pursu[it] of an eviction case during the window period, 12-months after the acceptance of ERAP funds," and dismissed the proceeding on the basis that service of a notice of termination was an "act[ ] designed to cause an eviction" in violation of the statute. (Id.) Respondent contends that the predicate notice of nonrenewal is incurably defective, and this proceeding must be dismissed, because he enjoyed a 12-month statutorily created tenancy from the date petitioner accepted the approved ERAP funds, prior to service of the predicate notice. Thus, his tenancy could not have been terminated on November 20, 2022, because his tenancy was statutorily extended through at least April 26, 2023, due to the acceptance of ERA