P funds on April 27, 2022. (NYSCEF Doc No. 9, respondent's atty affirmation ¶¶ 5-7; see also NYSCEF Doc No. 11, petitioner's atty affirmation in opp ¶ 10 [acknowledging receipt of ERAP funds on Apr. 27, 2022].)[FN2]
In opposition, petitioner argues that its acceptance of ERAP funds does not preclude petitioner from serving a notice of{**80 Misc 3d at 586} termination and/or commencing a holdover proceeding. Petitioner advances that it has only agreed "not to evict" respondent by reason of his expired lease pursuant to section 9 (2) (d) (iv) of ERAP (L 2021, ch 56, § 1, part BB, § 1, subpart A, sec 1, § 9 [2] [d] [iv], as amended by L 2021, ch 417, § 2, part A, § 5), and that the plain meaning of "the word 'evict' is unambiguous, and the time to 'evict' is when a marshal or sheriff removes persons from possession by a warrant." (NYSCEF Doc No. 11, petitioner's atty affirmation in opp ¶ 8.) Petitioner cites to one case, Feuerman v Hugo (77 Misc 3d 171 [Civ Ct, NY County 2022]), a decision and order written by this judge, in support of its argument.