Since plaintiff gained nothing from the present litigation, it cannot be said that the judgment was “substantially favorable” to her (Walentas v Johnes, 257 AD2d 352, 354, lv dismissed 93 NY2d 958), or that plaintiff won “ ‘substantial relief ” (Senfeld v I.S.T.A. Holding Co., 235 AD2d 345, lv denied 92 NY2d 818), so as to warrant an award of attorney’s fees in her favor. Nor was plaintiff entitled to compensation for defendant’s breach of *46the warranty of habitability during a period in which plaintiff did not live in the apartment (see, Halkedis v Two E. End Ave. Apt. Corp., 161 AD2d 281, lv denied 76 NY2d 711). The trial court properly held that the amount of plaintiffs damages for defendant’s breach of the warranty of habitability pursuant to Real Property Law § 235-b was the difference between the maintenance paid by plaintiff and the rental value of the premises during the period of the breach (Mastrangelo v Five Riverside Corp., 262 AD2d 218).