[T]he critical factor in determining the status of the respondents herein as of the date of acceptance of the plan by the attorney general, is whether a final judgment and warrant of eviction has been issued, since ‘as a matter of law, the landlord-tenant relationship [is] not extinguished until the issuance of the warrant.’ In the absence of a judicial determination of the propriety of the landlord’s rejection of the tenancy or subtenancy, the legality of the tenancy in question ‘must be presumed.’
Here, all respondents were bona fide tenants with existing leases at the time the proposed offering plan was submitted to the Attorney General and distributed to the tenants in June 2005, and at no time was it alleged that respondents had breached the obligations under their leaseholds. Subsequent to the submission, and prior to the acceptance of, the plan by the Attorney General, the petitioner notified respondents that it would not be renewing their leases, and commenced these summary holdover proceedings to recover possession of the subject apartments. During the pendency of these proceedings, on June 22, 2006, the Attorney General accepted the offering plan. There has been neither the surrender of the premises by the respondents, nor has a final judgment of possession or warrant of eviction been issued.
Accordingly, respondents herein are ‘tenants in occupancy’ of the premises and are entitled to the protections of the Martin Act (internal citations omitted).4
