administrator in Westchester County]).
Therefore, even if the lease renewal offer had not vitiated the predicate notice, petitioner's failure to notify HPD of the instant proceeding would be fatal.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, service of a renewal lease vitiated the predicate notice and petitioner's failure to notify HPD of this proceeding was a fatal defect.{**81 Misc 3d at 224}
Thus, respondent's motion for summary judgment is granted, and this proceeding is dismissed.
Footnotes
Footnote 1: Regardless of a landlord's intentions, a lease offer will vitiate a Golub notice. (See Isaly-Liceaga v Pickarski, 63 Misc 3d 154[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50802[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2019] [owner's use]; Levin v Brust, 80 Misc 3d 13, 14 [App Term, 1st Dept 2023] [nonprimary residence].)
Footnote 2: For an example of these elaborate, perhaps even byzantine, service requirements see Alawlaqi v Kelly (175 Misc 2d 570, 571 [Civ Ct, Kings County 1997]).
Footnote 3: For an instance of this sort of confusion see 1068 Gerard Partnership L.P. v Laroche (76 Misc 3d 1227[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 51062[U] [Civ Ct, Bronx County 2022] [observing that the landlord's position was that there was no need to serve HPD]).