*1 Rensselaer Housing Authority (“RHA”) alleges that Natasha Beverly (“Beverly”) breached their lease agreement by removing smoke detectors. On November 8, 2017, RHA served Beverly with notice of the breach indicating that Beverly had to vacate the apartment no later than December 15, 2017. Beverly had a right to an administrative hearing to contest the grounds for termination of the lease — she did not avail herself of this option. Rather, Beverley, on the advice of counsel, tendered December’s rent, which under circumstances that will be explained later, was accepted by RHA. Beverley did not vacate the apartment and RHA commenced a holdover proceeding under the authority of RPAPL §711(1).The court held a trial on January 2, 2018. Before the commencement of the trial, the court allowed Beverly to provide an oral answer to the petition (RPAPL §743; 22 NYCRR §210.7). Beverley defended on two grounds. First, RHA’s acceptance of the rent occurred before the commencement of the holdover proceeding and therefore requires this action to be dismissed with prejudice and, second, she never removed or otherwise tampered with the smoke detectors.The trial testimony established the following: During a routine inspection of Beverly’s apartment, RHA maintenance employees testified that they found three smoke detectors disabled. On November 8, 2017, RHA informed Beverly that having three smoke detectors disabled was a breach of the lease. Further, RHA notified Beverly that because she breached the lease, RHA was terminating her tenancy on Friday December 15, 2017.From RHA’s perspective, the tenancy expired on December 15, 2017. Beverly had not vacated by the 15th, so on Monday December 18, 2017, at its first opportunity, RHA prepared a petition seeking to have Beverly evicted as unlawfully holding over after the expiration of her lease. The petition was given to Laurie Mooney (“Mooney”) who is an occupancy specialist at RHA. Mooney’s duties include, among other things, the collection of rent and the filing of petitions.On December 18, before Mooney had filed the petition with the Rensselaer City Court Clerk, Beverly presented a money order for $280 which Mooney accepted. The details of this transaction give rise to a dispute over the legal ramifications of Mooney accepting Beverly’s money order.When Beverly gave the money order to Mooney, Mooney “auto-distributed” the payment. Auto distribution of a payment is a chronologically based system — the system
*2
