For the foregoing reasons, the Movant’s motion to deem the Leases automatically rejected as a matter of law pursuant to section 365(d)(4) is denied without prejudice to moving to compel assumption or rejection under section 365(d)(2). The parties are directed to schedule an evidentiary hearing on the Movant’s request to lift the stay for cause under section 362(d)(1). It is SO ORDERED. 1 . The Debtor has not objected to the Movant’s characterization of his interest in the Apartments as a leasehold. In his papers, the Debtor has implicitly assumed that the documents created true leasehold interests and has predicated his arguments opposing the motion on that assumption. Cf. Liona Corp. v. PCH Assocs. (In re PCH Assocs.), 804 F.2d 193, 198-99, Bankr.L.Rep. (CCH) ¶ 71,517 (2d Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Accord Baker v. Harris Pine Mills (In re
holding that the question of whether a bankruptcy trustee or a putative lessor was entitled to the proceeds of an equipment sale depended on whether a true lease was involved when the lease is intended as a security interest article 9 applies however a bona fide lease is not affected by article 9 holding section 365d4 inapplicable to saleleaseback arrangement because not true and bona fide lease holding that the defendant obtained legal title to property where he obtained the vehicle under a lease arrangement by fraudulent representation holding that because a party was not a bona fide purchaser the recording statute availed him not holding plan was not bona fide because the employees never earned more than the guaranteed hourly wage