First, respondent cites to Tian to support his argument that the predicate notice is defective because "[a] new 12-month lease had already been issued and had not expired." (NYSCEF Doc No. 12, respondent's atty affirmation in reply ¶ 21.) More specifically, respondent argues that "the predicate notice . . . reference[s] the wrong lease and the wrong date, [*5]as a new 12-month lease had already been put into place." (Id.) However, basic principles of contract law militate in favor of finding the agreement that the landlord entered into upon accepting payment of ERAP monies to be with the administering agency, the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA), not with respondent, the approved applicant. Contrary to Tian, this court finds that the ERAP statute provides for an agreement between a recipient landlord and OTDA, to which the approved occupant is an intended third-party beneficiary.[FN5]