The case now circles back to the trial evidence and whether Brown proved his affirmative defense of retaliatory eviction. Brown offered four complaints that triggered protection under Real Property Law § 223-b. Of these complaints, two dealt with the warranty of habitability issues (Real Property Law § 223-b [1] [b]) and two dealt with health and safety complaints to a governmental authority (Real Property Law § 223-b [1] [a]). The court will examine each in turn.
[3] With respect to the warranty of habitability issues, to make a prima facie case on the affirmative defense of illegal retaliatory non-renewal of a lease under Real Property Law § 223-b (1) (b), the tenant must prove the following elements: (1) the tenant took actions to secure or to enforce his rights under Real Property Law § 235-b; (2) such actions were undertaken in good faith; (3) the landlord was aware of the tenant's actions; and (4) if the tenant's actions took place within the six month period before being served with a notice to quit, then the landlord's refusal to renew the lease is presumed to have been in retaliation for the tenant's complaint or (5) if the tenant's actions took place longer than six months before being{**62 Misc 3d at 282} served with a notice to quit, then the tenant must prove that the landlord's decision not to renew the lease was in retaliation for the tenant's actions.