(40 Misc 3d 1227[A], 975 NYS2d 710 [Civ Ct NY Co 2013]). The evidence at trial established
that Petitioner is a privately-owned, HUD-subsidized Section 8 development which Respondent
was well-aware of and the Petition is hereby deemed to reflect this.
Regarding Respondent's second affirmative defense that Petitioner refused to process her
request to add her nephew to her household, Respondent presented no evidence of when she
made the request or what she submitted to the management office. Nor was there any evidence of
the connection between Respondent's purported request, Petitioner's alleged denial of that request
and this nonpayment proceeding. To the extent Respondent is arguing that had her (unproven)
request to add her nephew been granted, she would not have been "over housed" and would not
have had to relocate to a 2-bedroom apartment, such argument ignores HUD occupancy
standards, discussed below, that contemplate two-persons-per-bedroom, taking into consideration
age, gender and relationship. There was simply no evidence presented about Respondent's
grandson and nephew from which the court can conclude that a 2-bedroom apartment would not
be the right size for Respondent's family even if her nephew were to join them.
Regarding Respondent's fifth affirmative defense and two counterclaims based on breach of
the warranty of habitability, while Respondent testified about repairs she needed in the past, the
court cannot award a rent abatement given her "vague and unparticularized testimony" as to what
the conditions were, how long they lasted, when she reported them to Petitioner, whether
Petitioner initially refused to make repairs or scheduled and then failed to appear for access dates