For that reason, the issue of vitiation depends on several factors. These factors include the intention of the landlord, whether the landlord was legally obligated to serve a renewal lease, and the type of holdover the landlord is pursuing since even inadvertent lease offers will vitiate the predicate notices of certain types of holdovers (see e.g. Coleman v Dabrowski, 163 Misc 2d 763 [App Term, 1st Dept 1994] [requiring that courts look to the intention of the landlords in some situations];{**81 Misc 3d at 221} see generally 123 W. 15, LLC v Compton, 4 Misc 3d 138[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50938[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2004]).[FN1]
However, as respondent's attorney correctly argues, there is no rule or regulation that requires petitioner to serve a new lease. Petitioner brought an end-of-lease holdover. Petitioner alleges that the subject premises are unregulated. Therefore, petitioner was under no obligation to offer respondent a new lease.
Where a landlord is not under an obligation to serve a new lease, but does so anyway, the offer will usually serve to vitiate any prior predicate notice (see e.g. Stepping Stones Assoc. v Seymour, 8 Misc 3d 138[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51309[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005] [observing that a landlord was not entitled to dispossess a tenant because, in part, when the landlord "offered and executed the renewal lease, it was under no legal compulsion to do so"]; see also Related Broadway Dev. LLC v Malo, 58 Misc 3d 154[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50175[U], *2 [App Term, 1st Dept 2018] ["In these circumstances, tenant's current right of possession flows from the binding renewal lease, and therefore, tenant cannot be dispossessed pursuant to the prior final judgment"]).