A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the trial court's fact-laden determination that the warranty of habitability was breached when respondent-subtenant's ground floor terrace/patio area was closed by the nonparty building cooperative, so that this area could be utilized as a staging area for the erection of scaffolding to perform mandatory Local Law 11 repair work on the building facade. We reject, as did the trial court, petitioner-sublessor's attempt to avoid liability for the breach. A subtenant may properly assert the warranty of habitability as a defense to a nonpayment claim by a sublessor/proprietary lessee of an apartment (see Wright v Catcendix Corp., 248 AD2d 186 [1998]; Itskov v Rosenblum, 7 Misc 3d 135[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50764[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2005]). Nor is it controlling that the "culprit" is the cooperative, since the statutory warranty of habitability can apply to conditions resulting from events beyond a landlord's control (see Sutton Fifty-Six Co. v Garrison, 93 AD2d 720, 721-722 [1983]). Any exculpatory clause in the parties' sublease agreement was not a bar to the defense of the breach of the warranty of habitability, "since section 235-b of the Real Property Law voids any lease provision that purports to modify any tenant's rights arising thereunder" (id. at 721).