trued section 9 (2) (d) (iii) and (iv) of ERAP (L [*4]2021, ch 56, § 1, part BB, § 1, subpart A, sec 1, § 9 [2] [d] [iii]-[iv], as amended by L 2021,{**80 Misc 3d at 588} ch 417, § 2, part A, § 5) as creating a binding " 'agreement' that . . . specifies the amount of rent and definite terms by which the agreement begins and ends, terms that are crucial toward rendering the agreement to be a valid lease." (Id. at *3 [citations omitted].) The Tian court concluded that a landlord's "acceptance of an ERAP benefit creates the kind of . . . agreement that is essentially a lease . . . [which gives] rise to liability for nonpayment of rent . . . [and which] bars . . . [a] no-cause holdover proceeding." (Id. [citations omitted].) In other words, the Tian court found that the omission of a dismissal remedy for serving a notice of termination, and the provision of that remedy elsewhere in the statute, does not foreclose a court from dismissing a holdover proceeding based on an expired lease because a lease agreement has been created by accepting ERAP funds; and, based on this interpretation of the statute, the statute must also be interpreted to require dismissal.
Oral argument was held on June 14, 2023, and the court reserved decision.
Discussion
The consequences for a landlord when it accepts ERAP monies are set forth in the ERAP statute: