[2012]). An interpretation that requires payment of monthly rent as a condition for the stay (as opposed to all rent due) also comports with the "remedial nature" of RPAPL 755 that has been recognized by appellate courts (see Leejon Realty Co. v Davis, 99 Misc 2d 681, 682 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 1977] [The statute's "purpose is to motivate a landlord to make the repairs" (citations [*3]omitted)]; B.L.H. Realty Corp. v Cruz, 87 Misc 2d 258, 260 [App Term, 1st Dept 1975]; Brissett v Cherry, 54 Misc 2d 353, 354 [App Term, 1st Dept 1967]).
The case cited by petitioner (566 Beck Realty Corp. v Ramirez, 88 Misc 2d 92 [App Term, 1st Dept 1976]) does not compel a different result. In Ramirez, the Appellate Term only reversed the lower court's continuation of a stay where the tenant failed to pay ongoing rent (88 Misc 2d at 93). While the lower court had also conditioned the stay on payment of the rent sought in the petition and payment of future rent as it accrued, the propriety of the initial deposit was not the subject of the appeal.