on, however, permits the segregation of a few words from their context and from all the rest of the section or rule for purposes of construction . . . and the enacting body will be presumed to have inserted every provision for some useful purpose" (citations omitted)].) By the words of the statute a respondent in a summary holdover proceeding based on "expired lease or holdover tenancy" is provided safe haven from an eviction for 12 months and is protected from any rent increase in excess of that for which the tenant applied for 12 months. (L 2021, ch 56, § 1, part BB, § 1, subpart A, sec 1, § 9 [2] [d] [iii]-[iv], as amended by L 2021, ch 417, § 2, part A, § 5.) This is a useful purpose which is met without the need to infer an intent to create a one-year tenancy.
The court is more concerned with adhering to the plain language of the statute, and less concerned about providing a remedy to a landlord whose occupant remains in the premises{**80 Misc 3d at 592} without paying rent after acceptance of ERAP funds. (Cf. JSB Props. LLC v Yershov, 77 [*7]Misc 3d 235, 242 [Civ Ct, NY County 2022] [finding that acceptance of ERAP benefits by a landlord creates an actionable agreement to pay rent which provides the basis for a nonpayment proceeding].) A landlord is not left without a remedy. A landlord is not barred from seeking use and occupancy from a respondent in a pending holdover proceeding, or from alternatively commencing a plenary proceeding where the ultimate relief does not comprise an eviction.