PER CURIAM:
In a 1986 settlement of prior litigation, the parties stipulated, inter alia, that another apartment in the building — not the subject of this holdover — was tenant's rent controlled primary residence. Tenant was granted a lease for the separate premises at issue herein, with the right to renew for 12 one-year terms, the apartment to be occupied by tenant and/or individuals of his choosing. It was further stipulated that the apartment was not subject to rent control or rent stabilization and that tenant would not claim the benefit of those laws in any future action.
This proceeding was commenced upon expiration of the renewal periods reserved in the stipulation and initial 1986 lease. In defense, tenant does not argue that he is a regulated tenant but asserts that the parties, by separate agreement, "agreed that their relationship shall be governed by the terms of the Rent Stabilization Law". To this end, tenant points to landlord's 1997 tender of a renewal lease form and rider promulgated under the Rent Stabilization Law, signed by both sides, pursuant to which tenant apparently paid the same rent for six years. Given that coverage under rent stabilization is a matter of statutory right and cannot be created by waiver or estoppel (see, Ruiz v. Chwatt Associates, 247 AD2d 308), tenant's CPLR 3211(a)(7) dismissal motion was properly denied. At this pre-answer stage of the proceeding, and without the advantage of a developed record, it is not established that there was a meeting of the minds to confer stabilized status or benefits upon the tenant, thereby overriding and/or modifying the 1986 stipulation which was subsequently reaffirmed in 1990. Nor has any public policy rationale been advanced for declining to enforce the so-ordered stipulations negotiated by counsel (see, Kent v. Bedford Apartments Co., 237 AD2d 140).
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.