A valid contract comprises "an offer, acceptance of the offer, consideration, mutual assent, and an intent to be bound." (22 NY Jur 2d, Contracts § 9.) The acts that support an agreement between OTDA and petitioner herein are as follows: OTDA informed petitioner that respondent's ERAP application had been approved and offered payment of the approved funds conditioned on petitioner's agreement to certain terms. Petitioner was given a choice whether to accept the offer of payment from OTDA subject to the terms of acceptance, or to refuse the offer of payment. Petitioner accepted the payment of arrears, in consideration for which it relinquished its right to evict or increase the rent for one year. (See Lebedev v Blavatnik, 193 AD3d 175, 183 [1st Dept 2021] [stating that valuable consideration for a contract may be some forbearance, or responsibility assumed]; see also Springstead v Nees, 125 App Div 230, 232 [2d Dept 1908] ["Forbearance to assert either a {**80 Misc 3d at 590}legal or an equitable claim is sufficient consideration" for a contract].) Respondent did not accept the approved ERAP funds; rather, petitioner accepted them on his behalf. Respondent was not given the choice to have petitioner accept or reject the monies; rather, it was only petitioner who could accept or reject the offer. Respondent did not provide consideration for the payment; rather, it was petitioner who forfeited its legal right to possession of the premises after expiration of the lease for a period of 12 months following petitioner's acceptance of the ERAP funds.