Opinion
May 26, 1998
Appeal from the Civil Court, Kings County (Callender, J.; see, 164 Misc.2d 756)
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The petitioner-landlord commenced this proceeding to recover for the nonpayment of rent, and the respondent-tenant counterclaimed that the landlord had breached the warranty of habitability. The apartment in question was subject to Federal regulations by the Department of Housing and Urban Development as project based Section 8 housing ( see, 24 CFR part 880). Contrary to the landlords claim on appeal, the Civil Court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction in this case ( see, CCA 110). Furthermore, the Appellate Term properly affirmed the Civil Courts determination that the monetary basis for calculating the rent abatement found to be due the tenant because of the landlords breach is the full contract rent, defined in the regulations as the sum a landlord receives both from HUD (or through public housing agencies) and from the tenant ( see, 24 C.F.R. § 80.101 [c]), and which reflects the fair market value of the apartment ( see, Park W. Mgt. Corp. v. Mitchell, 47 N.Y.2d 316, 329, cert denied 444 U.S. 992).
Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Joy and McGinity, JJ., concur.