federal disability claims would constitute a “defense” in the eviction proceeding, because they contend that the IHA’s termination of their tenancy without considering a reasonable accommodation for their disabilities violates federal law and therefore is invalid. Thus, pursuant to RPAPL § 743, where, as here, federal disability claims have been classified as “defenses” in eviction proceedings, housing courts have jurisdiction to hear them. Cf. RCG-UA Glenwood, LLC v. Young, 9 Misc.3d 25, 26, 801 N.Y.S.2d 481, 481-82 (N.Y.App.Term 2005) (affirming Civil Court ruling in favor of plaintiff-tenant dismissing an eviction petition because reasonable accommodation was required under the FHA); Crossroads Apartments Assocs. v. LeBoo, 152 Misc.2d 830, 578 N.Y.S.2d 1004 (N.Y.City Ct.1991) .(<HOLDING>); Landmark Props. v. Olivo, 5 Misc.3d 18, 783
holding that the defendant could not raise affirmative defenses initially in its dispositive motion but remanding the case to the trial court to determine if leave to amend answer to incorporate affirmative defenses was appropriate so that the defendant could then properly raise those defenses in its dispositive motion holding that the antiinjunction act barred the court from enjoining eviction proceedings because claims for rescission under tila can be brought in state court including as a defense to an eviction claim in housing court holding that new york could not avoid its obligations under the rehabilitation act by delegating authority to localities to deliver federally funded services holding rehabilitation act applicable holding that the plaintiff in an eviction proceeding by a private landlord in federally funded section 8 housing could assert claims for violations of the rehabilitation act and fha as affirmative defenses with regard to nopet policy