The record establishes that the first month's rent claimed as owing in the complaint had been actually paid, and, given that the amount awarded in the judgment was the same amount as requested in the complaint, at least one month's rent was incorrectly included in the award. Additionally, no findings were made by the trial court regarding when defendants had actually vacated the premises or what damage defendants were actually responsible for and whether any setoffs should have been applied based on defendant Sulu Mussabekova's claim of breach of the warranty of habitability (see Real Property Law § 235-b). There were also no findings made as to whether the defendants' security deposit had been used to offset the alleged rent arrears and property damage.