Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court, New York County, dated January 31, 2002 (Maria Milin, J.) granting tenants' motion to dismiss the petition in this holdover summary proceeding. Tenants cross appeal from the order insofar as the order severed tenants' counterclaims for overcharge and attorneys' fees.

PER CURIAM:

Order dated January 31, 2002 (Maria Milin, J.) affirmed, with $10 costs.

Tenants' immediate predecessor occupied the rent stabilized apartment premises at a monthly rent of $1,500. In November 1994, tenants and landlord entered into a two-year lease [*2]at an agreed monthly rent of $2,600 which provided for exemption of the apartment from the Rent Stabilization Law conditioned upon tenants not utilizing the premises as their primary residence. A contemporaneous agreement entered in Supreme Court memorialized this arrangement, and the parties thereafter executed "non-primary" renewals through October 2000. When tenants would not agree to a new lease at a monthly rental of $5,000, this holdover proceeding ensued, based upon a petition which asserted that the premises were not subject to rent stabilization "due to the fact that the rent is over $2,000 monthly".

Upon these undisputed facts, we affirm Civil Court's dismissal of the petition. It is now well settled that attempts to deregulate a stabilized apartment by the use of lease agreements conditioned upon a tenant's acquiescence in a representation of nonprimary residence usage are void, notwithstanding consent judgments of endorsement (9 NYCRR [Rent Stabilization Code] § 2525.3[b]; § 2520.13; Draper v Georgia Properties, 94 NY2d 809; 390 West End Assoc. v Harel, 298 AD2d 11; 390 West End Assoc. v Brown, 274 AD2d 330). In consequence, the premises must be returned to the status quo ante, i.e., the rent stabilized status prior to execution of the original invalid lease. We would add that no explanation appears on the record for the increase from the prior regulated rent to the monthly rent of $2,600. Landlord's reliance upon statutes which preclude examination of the rental history beyond four years (see CPLR § 213-a; Rent Stabilization Law § 26-516[a]) is misplaced, since those statutes address an "action" or "complaint" for rent overcharge, not a possessory proceeding for eviction. Manifestly, these provisions may not be invoked to validate a private agreement where the parties have impermissibly contracted to effectively deregulate a covered housing accommodation (see 390 West End v Harel, supra, at 16).

Any issue as to the amount of rent to be set in a future lease between the parties is not before us and we do not reach it.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.