abatement, the sum of $16,019.64, and dismissed tenant's warranty-of-habitability counterclaim.
In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this court is as broad as
that of the trial court, and this court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts,
bearing in mind that the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given [*2]substantial deference, as a trial court's opportunity to observe and
evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which
to assess their credibility (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of
Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Hamilton v Blackwood, 85 AD3d 1116 [2011]; Zeltser v Sacerdote, 52 AD3d 824,
826 [2008]).
Landlords are required to maintain properties in a habitable condition and in accord with the
uses reasonably intended by the parties (see Real Property Law § 235-b; Park W.
Mgt. Corp. v Mitchell, 47 NY2d 316 [1979]). To prevail on a defense or counterclaim based
on a breach of the warranty of habitability, a tenant must offer proof as to the dates, severity and
duration of the conditions complained of (see Sinclair v Ramnarace, 36 Misc 3d 150[A], 2012 NY Slip Op
51671[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]; Anoula Realty Corp. v Weiss, 16 Misc
3d 133[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51496[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists
2007]), and show that notice of the conditions was given to the landlord (see Anoula Realty Corp. v Weiss, 16
Misc 3d 133[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51496[U]; New Franconia Assoc. v Popper, 2003
NY Slip Op 51116[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2003]). Additionally, the tenant must show that the
landlord was provided with access and an opportunity to repair the conditions, yet failed to do so