In reply, respondent distinguishes Feuerman as "inapplicable." (NYSCEF Doc No. 12, respondent's atty affirmation in reply ¶¶ 2, 4.) Respondent reconciles the facts of this proceeding with Feuerman on the basis that, in Feuerman, at the time of both the tenant's application for ERAP and the landlord's acceptance of same, there was already a pending holdover proceeding. Thus, the landlord permissibly accepted ERAP funds without reinstating the already properly terminated tenancy, as is a landlord's right under Real Property Actions and [*3]Proceedings Law § 711.[FN3] (Id. ¶ 5.) In contrast here, respondent applied for, and petitioner accepted, ERAP funds prior to petitioner's commencement of the current proceeding. Respondent argues that by these actions, petitioner agreed not to "seek to evict" respondent for 12 months. (Id. ¶ 16.) Respondent extracts the words "seek to evict" from the sponsor's memorandum for the legislation that created the ERAP program, and urges that the memorandum elucidates what the Legislature intended by the words "not to evict." (Senate Introducer's Mem in Support of 2021 NY Senate Bill S2742C, incorporated in L 2021, ch 56; NYSCEF Doc No. 13, respondent's exhibit 2.) Respondent further argues that service of a notice of termination is "a statutorily mandated pre-requisite to beginning an eviction proceeding," and is tantamount to "seeking to evict" respondent; thus, respondent posits that service of a predicate notice of nonrenewal of lease violated this agreement by putting respondent on notice that the landlord would commence an eviction proceeding. (NYSCEF Doc No. 12, respondent's atty{**80 Misc 3d at 587} affirmation in reply ¶¶ 5, 15.) Respondent contends that petitioner is reading the word "evict" too narrowly, and that service of a notic