150 West End Owners Corp. v. Chestnut Holdings of N.Y. Inc., 49 Misc. 3d 1147 (2015)
- Citation
- 150 West End Owners Corp. v. Chestnut Holdings of N.Y. Inc., 49 Misc. 3d 1147 (2015)
- Parent Document
- 150 West End Owners Corp. v. Chestnut Holdings of N.Y. Inc., 49 Misc. 3d 1147 (2015)
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Effective Date
- 2015-09-25
Other Sections in This Document (12)
- 150 West End Owners Corp. v. Chestnut Holdings of N.Y. Inc., 49 Misc. 3d 1147 (2015)
- 150 West End Owners Corp. v. Chestnut Holdings of N.Y. Inc., 49 Misc. 3d 1147 (2015)
- 150 West End Owners Corp. v. Chestnut Holdings of N.Y. Inc., 49 Misc. 3d 1147 (2015)
- 150 West End Owners Corp. v. Chestnut Holdings of N.Y. Inc., 49 Misc. 3d 1147 (2015)
- 150 West End Owners Corp. v. Chestnut Holdings of N.Y. Inc., 49 Misc. 3d 1147 (2015)
- 150 West End Owners Corp. v. Chestnut Holdings of N.Y. Inc., 49 Misc. 3d 1147 (2015)
- 150 West End Owners Corp. v. Chestnut Holdings of N.Y. Inc., 49 Misc. 3d 1147 (2015)
- 150 West End Owners Corp. v. Chestnut Holdings of N.Y. Inc., 49 Misc. 3d 1147 (2015)
- 150 West End Owners Corp. v. Chestnut Holdings of N.Y. Inc., 49 Misc. 3d 1147 (2015)
- 150 West End Owners Corp. v. Chestnut Holdings of N.Y. Inc., 49 Misc. 3d 1147 (2015)
- 150 West End Owners Corp. v. Chestnut Holdings of N.Y. Inc., 49 Misc. 3d 1147 (2015)
- 150 West End Owners Corp. v. Chestnut Holdings of N.Y. Inc., 49 Misc. 3d 1147 (2015)
Full Text
1,280 charsSimilarly, respondent’s counterclaim for breach of the warranty of habitability is unrelated because the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to hear a breach of warranty of habitability claim in a commercial proceeding. (Disunno v WRH Props., LLC, 97 AD3d 780, 781 [2d Dept 2012]; Polak v Bush Lbr. Co., 170 AD2d 932 [3d Dept 1991]; Semans Family Ltd. Partnership v Kennedy, 177 Misc 2d 345, 350 [Civ Ct, NY County 1998].) The warranty of habitability contained in Real Property *1151Law § 235-b applies only to residential tenants. (Id.) Accordingly, respondent’s counterclaim for breach of warranty of habitability is stricken by this court. Similarly, respondent’s counterclaim seeking damages for repair costs is unrelated to nonpayment of rent. (See Prakhin v Fulton Towers Realty Corp., 122 AD3d 601, 603 [2d Dept 2014] [obligation of a commercial tenant to pay rent does not end if the tenant remains in possession even if the landlord fails to make essential repairs]; Ring v Arts Intl., Inc., 7 Misc 3d 869, 881 [Civ Ct, NY County 2004] [tenant’s counterclaim for costs of repairing leased premises damaged by flood was not permissible in a commercial nonpayment summary proceeding].) Therefore, respondent’s unrelated counterclaim for repair costs is stricken by this court.