While defendant, now represented by counsel, correctly argues on appeal that the lease permits her to retain the security deposit for unpaid rent, here there was ample, unrebutted evidence to support plaintiff's implicit claim of a breach of the warranty of habitability, warranting a total abatement of the rent that defendant alleges was unpaid. Furthermore, a fair interpretation of the evidence supports the Civil Court's determination that defendant was individually liable for the additional damages plaintiff incurred. Thus, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see CCA 1804, 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ELLIOT, JJ., concur. ENTER: Paul Kenny Chief Clerk Decision Date: September 29, 2017