In Minick v. Park (217 AD2d 489 [1st Dept 1995]), the lease required the landlord to give the tenant a six-month notice of termination in order for the landlord to obtain possession of the rent-stabilized apartment for his own personal use and occupancy even though it was not statutorily required. The landlord argued that Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) 2524.2 (c) (3) which required lesser notice of not less than 120 days or more than 150 days (Golub Notice) prior to lease expiration controlled. The Appellate Division resoundingly rejected the landlord's argument holding that "the statutory scheme simply establishes the minimum rights to be accorded tenants, and does not preclude a contract that gives a tenant greater rights." (Supra, at 490). Similarly, in Waring Barker Co. v. Santiago, the lease required the landlord to serve a notice to cure prior to terminating the tenancy upon the ground of "objectionable conduct." The landlord did not serve a notice to cure, but relied on Rent Stabilization Code 2524.3 (b) which does not require a landlord to serve a notice to cure in a nuisance holdover proceeding. The Appellate Term also rejected the landlord's argument based on the Appellate Division's holding in Minick v. Park (supra).