PER CURIAM.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Order (Kelly O'Neill Levy, J.), dated April 16, 2014, affirmed, with $10 costs.
The motion court correctly dismissed that branch of the nonpayment petition seeking a possessory judgment for rent arrears accruing prior to April 16, 2012, the date that tenant, as successor to her mother's Section 8 “project-based” tenancy, became a party to a lease agreement with landlord. A nonpayment proceeding can be maintained only to collect rent owed pursuant to an “agreement” between the parties (RPAPL 711[2] ), and there was no agreement in effect between these parties until April 16, 2012, the effective date of their written lease agreement (see 615 Nostrand Ave. Corp. v. Roach, 15 Misc.3d 1 [2006] ). Nor is a contrary result warranted by any language in the lease agreement purporting to give the agreement retroactive effect, or by any retroactive annual income certifications signed by tenant. “Because a successor in interest is not a tenant until he becomes a party to a lease or rental agreement ... and because tenant did not become a party to the lease until after the arrears sought had accrued, a nonpayment proceeding does not lie to recover these arrears” (Strand Hill Assoc. v. Gassenbauer, 41 Misc.3d 53, 54–55 [2013] ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur.