"Reading the provisions together, subsection (b)'s 120-day moratorium must expire before landlords may issue an eviction under subsection (c)(1). The moratorium is limited to evictions for nonpayment of rent. 15 U.S.C. § 9058(b). Thus, subsection (c)(2)'s reference to subsection (b) indicates that Congress intended to limit the 30-day notice{**88 Misc 3d at 640} requirement, namely to evictions for failure to pay rent . . .
"Here, the section heading adopted in the CARES Act emphasizes the limited time frame of the eviction moratorium and, by implication, the basis of the paused evictions—nonpayment of rent. 15 U.S.C. § 9058(b), (c)(2). Interpreting the 30-day notice requirement as applying to nonpayment of rent connects § 9058(c)(2) to its section heading, whereas applying the notice [*5]to all evictions disconnects the subsection from the heading." (Housing Auth. of County of King v Knight, 4 Wash 3d 324, 333, 563 P3d 1058, 1063 [2025].)
"The plain language of the Act provides that the two subsections are integrally related, and the notice at issue is one for nonpayment of rent. The word 'and' is conjunctive. 'The word "or" can never be substituted for "and" in a statute when the meaning of the language used in the statute is plain and there is nothing in it to call for the substitution. Courts will construe "or" as "and," and vice versa, only where from the context of other provisions of the statute, or from former laws relating to the same subject and indicating the policy of the State thereon, such clearly appears to have been the legislative intent.'