In Reisman v. Johnson (NYLJ, June 10, 1993, at 25, col 6 [App Term, 1st Dept, per curiam].), the court reversed the dismissal of an owner-occupancy holdover petition because "whether the claimed agreement concerning use and occupation was in fact made by the parties and whether the landlord knowingly abandoned its right to prosecute the holdover proceeding are issues which should be ventilated at a plenary trial." (Id.) But the facts of Reisman are distinguishable from the facts here. Petitioner in Reisman crossed out the word "rent" and wrote in its place "U & O" and included the language "without prejudice" in its endorsement of money orders that the tenant tendered after the lease expired. (Id.) Petitioner in this case did not make similar notations on respondent Westcott's checks. The petitioner in Reisman, moreover, submitted a letter in support of its argument that this method of endorsement was consistent with an oral agreement made by telephone between the parties. (Id.) The letter stated that "in view of your continued occupancy of [the apartment] beyond the term of the lease, you remit monthly payments for that use and occupancy to the landlord . You have agreed that this arrangement would be acceptable, and the amount that we agreed on was your former rent . namely $ 454.17 per month." (Id.)