1240[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51654[U] [Civ Ct, Kings County 2011].) The assertion
of even one unrelated counterclaim out of many will result in a waiver of the defense of
lack of personal jurisdiction. (See Textile, 81 NY2d at 58-59 ["(A)sserting
an unrelated counterclaim does waive such defense because defendant is taking
affirmative advantage of the court's jurisdiction" (emphasis added)]; N.A.S. Holdings, Inc. v
Pafundi, 12 AD3d 751, 752 [3d Dept 2004].)
A counterclaim is "related" to a nonpayment proceeding when it must be asserted to
avoid the risk of preclusion under principles of collateral estoppel, i.e., "where the issues
in the plaintiff['s] claims are potentially identical and decisive of issues raised in the
counterclaims." (Textile, 81 NY2d at 59; N.A.S. Holdings, 12 AD3d at
752.) As a corollary, if the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to hear a particular counterclaim
because it cannot be litigated in the first instance, that counterclaim is unrelated because
it could not be barred by collateral estoppel in a later proceeding. (Halberstam v
Kramer, 39 Misc 3d 126[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50408[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d,
11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]; 374 E. Parkway.)
Respondent's counterclaims for its alleged loss of income, and damages for breach of
[*3]warranty of habitability, cost of repairs, and attorney's
fees are unrelated either because the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to hear them
or because they have no bearing on the nonpayment issue, while respondent's
counterclaim for damages due to being evicted is related.
Pursuant to section 208 (a) of the New York City Civil Court Act, the Civil Court
shall have jurisdiction "[o]f any counterclaim the subject matter of which would be
within the jurisdiction{**49 Misc 3d at 1150} of the