In consolidated nonpayment summary proceedings, tenants appeal 1)from an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Ernest J. Cavallo, J.), entered November 23, 2004, which denied their motion, inter alia, to set aside a final judgment previously awarded in landlord's favor on index number L&T 65238/03; 2)from an order of the same court (John Landsden, J.), dated November 12, 2004, which denied tenants' motion to dismiss the petition in index number L&T 77141/04 on jurisdictional grounds; and 3) from that portion of an order of the same court (John Landsden, J.), dated January 25, 2005, which upon reargument, adhered to the prior order of November 12, 2004.

PER CURIAM:

Order (Ernest J. Cavallo, J.), entered November 23, 2004, affirmed, with $10 costs, for the reasons stated by Ernest J. Cavallo, J. at the Civil Court. Orders (John Landsden, J.), dated [*2]November 12, 2004 and January 25, 2005, affirmed, with $l0 costs, for the reasons stated by John Landsden, J. at the Civil Court.

Upon the expiration of the tenants' most recent renewal leases covering the rent stabilized units here in issue, the leases were "deemed to have been renewed upon the same terms and conditions as those previously in effect" (Lacher v DHCR, 25 AD3d 415 [2006], citing Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2523.5[c][2]). Thus, we reject, as did Civil Court, tenant's principal contention that the putative absence of an extant lease agreement barred the landlord from maintaining these nonpayment summary proceedings to collect the rent arrears due "pursuant to the agreement[s] under which the premises are held" (RPAPL § 711[2]; compare Haberman v Singer, 273 AD2d 177 [2000] [plaintiff-landlord's prolonged failure to comply with agency directive to tender a rent-stabilized lease to defendant-tenant or to accept the legal rent tendered by tenant held to preclude landlord from collecting back rent]).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: June 13, 2006