Put another way, in exchange for payment of rent arrears by OTDA, a landlord sacrificed certain rights in order to further the State's intention to prevent widespread evictions during the pandemic. The approved applicant benefits from a statutory moratorium on an increase in rent and on eviction "for reason of expired lease or holdover tenancy" which arises upon the landlord's acceptance of ERAP funds on the applicant's "behalf." (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.) Moreover, as a third-party beneficiary, the approved applicant benefits from the ability to enforce the terms of the landlord's agreement with OTDA by raising as a defense that their rent was prematurely increased, or by seeking a stay of the execution of a warrant in a summary proceeding for up to 12 months from the landlord's first acceptance of the ERAP funds.[FN6] This court finds that respondent did not enjoy a statutorily created lease between himself and his landlord for one [*6]year, nor can it be inferred that this was the parties' intent.[FN7] (Cf. JSB Props. LLC v Yershov, 77 Misc 3d 235, 242 [Civ Ct, NY County 2022] ["(O)ccupant's ERAP application constitutes an effort to bind a landlord to treat the applicant as a tenant for one year, an act consistent with an intention to continue a landlord-tenant relationship"].)