Upon our independent review of the record, and comparing similar abatement awards (see generally Frankel v Vernon & Ginsburg, LLP, ___ AD3d ___ , 2018 NY Slip Op 02577 [2018]), we conclude that a 60% abatement more closely represents "the difference between the fair market value of the premises if they had been as warranted, as measured by the rent reserved under the lease, and the value of the premises during the period of the breach" (Park W. Mgt. Corp v Mitchell, 47 NY2d 316, 329 [1979], cert. denied 444 US 992 [1979]); see e.g., Pickman Realty Corp. v Hess, NYLJ, June 22, 1993, at 27, col 4 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 1993][50% abatement was warranted where three rooms were blocked for ten months by scaffolding used for window installation and brick point work]; A. J. Clark & Son, Inc. v Kent, N.Y.L.J, March 1, 1987 [50% abatement was "excessive" where the loss was to one-half of the demised premises "as represented by a roof terrace"]). This reduced abatement, though substantial, was warranted by the evidence, which showed, inter alia, that respondent was completely deprived of use of the patio area, which was nearly twice the size of the interior of the apartment, and that the scaffolding work and the resulting dust accumulation prevented respondent from opening her windows and reduced the amount of light, air and ventilation inside the apartment (see Park W. Mgt. Corp. v Mitchell, 47 NY2d at 327; Goldhirsch v St. George Tower & Grill Owners Corp., 142 AD3d 1044, 1045 [2016]).