In Neighborhood Partnership HDFC v. Creekmur (Hous Part, Civ. Ct, Kings County, July 29, 2003, Sweeney, J.C.C., Index No. 98862/02), the tenant was moved to a new building with a different landlord. The stipulation in Neighborhood Partnership provided: "I also agree that management will pay the rent difference to the new landlord for the duration of my stay at this property." (Id. at 6-7.) Further, the petitioner sought from the respondent the full amount of the rent due, less the rent difference, for the second apartment. Thus, the petitioner entered into a tenancy with the new landlord, and the respondent, in effect, become petitioner's subtenant. The petitioner sought to recover arrears accrued regarding the second apartment by stating in the petition that the arrears were owed on the first apartment. (Id. at 2.) Thus, the petitioner sought to recover arrears that accrued regarding the second apartment by seeking to dispossess the respondent from the first apartment. Here, petitioner began the summary proceeding against respondent while respondent still lived at the substitute apartment, 152 West 144th Street. Additionally, both the 152 West 144th Street and 207-211 West 144th Street addresses were listed in the petition, and service was made on both apartments. Petitioner made it clear from the start that respondent was the tenant of record at 207-211 West 144th Street, apartment 19, but was occupying apartment 53 at 152 West 144th Street. Thus, petitioner sought to recover arrears arising out of the same tenancy--the status of which was unchanged by respondent's relocation--and stated in the petition its intent to recover possession of both premises. The respondent, pursuant to an agreement with the petitioner, relocated to a different apartment in another building to permit the petitioner to renovate the building. Rental arrears accumulated while the respondent was living in the substitute apartment. After the respondent moved back into the petitioner's building, the petitioner brought a nonpayment proceeding to recover the arrears accumulated while the respondent lived in the substitute apartment. The court found that the term "rent," as used in RPAPL 711 (2), refers only to arrears linked to the premises sought to be recovered. The court held that because the arrears had accumulated out of respondent's possession of a different apartment, the petitioner could not use a summary proceeding to recover arrears and possession of the apartment. The court found that "the rental arrears at issue did not arise out of respondent's possession and use of the premises sought to be recovered and constitute nothing more than a debt owed by the tenant to the landlord. The dispute between the parties is clearly about money and not about the petitioner's right of possession to the leased property due to respondent's nonpayment of rent." (Neighborhood Partnership, Index No. 98862/02, at 6-7.)