Appellate Term correctly held that the "with prejudice" discontinuance of the 1979 holdover proceeding has no res judicata effect on the instant proceeding to recover the subject apartment for the use of the landlord's now adult daughter. We would add only that the stipulation settling the prior holdover proceeding merely gave the tenant a right to renewal leases in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law, and not, as she would have it, a life estate in the subject apartment ( see, Gleason v Tompkins, 84 Misc.2d 174, 177). Under the parties' last lease, the landlord is entitled to attorneys' fees as the prevailing party in the proceeding ( Duell v. Roberts, 232 A.D.2d 301). There was no impermissible splitting of the landlord's cause of action for attorneys' fees, which, while not raised in the original petition, was raised in the context of the holdover proceeding by way of a motion to amend the judgment of possession ( cf., 930 Fifth Corp. v. King, 42 N.Y.2d 886).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Williams and Colabella, JJ.