context. (537 Greenwich LLC; 111 on 11 Realty Corp. v Norton, 191
Misc 2d 483, 486 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2002].) Accordingly, in the absence of a lease
provision, this court is without jurisdiction to hear respondent's counterclaim for legal
fees, and it is stricken.
Similarly, 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 {**49 Misc 3d at 1151} Law § 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 [*4]unrelated counterclaim for
repair costs is stricken by this court.
Although respondent is precluded from asserting counterclaims for damages for its
alleged loss of income, legal fees, breach of warranty of habitability, and repair costs in