[brief] Although the Court in the instant case acknowledged that the Landlord was paid $21,000 towards unpaid rent for the years 2021 and 2022 (as Covid relief), the Judge also painstakingly compared what the tenant claims she paid towards those same months that were meant to have been covered by DCA Covid relief.  By engaging in this inquiry, the Court in no way sought to subvert or shift the burden of proof between the litigants.  The Judge’s goal was to compare all the months the Appellant claims that she paid rent at $1200.00 a month in contrast to the $1500.00 that was paid by the [...] through the Covid relief.  However, even though the Judge ruled that the rent was $1500 a month based on the lease that was provided by the Respondent in connection with receiving the Covid relief payments, the Court ultimately decided that the outstanding rent was only $8,000.00 as opposed to $22,400.  This decision was ultimately based on the Judge agreeing to accept the Appellant’s claim that her rent was only $1200 a month over the Respondent’s claim that the rent was actually $1500 a month dating back to the inception of the tenancy in 2020.  This also establishes that, in the end, the Court gave greater deference to the Appellant concerning her claims regarding the monthly rent.  Again, even though the Judge made a factual finding that the rent was $1500.00 a month, the Court actually deferred to the tenant by revising its ruling that the rental arrears should be only $8,000 and if paid would preserve the tenancy.  This number was reached largely based on the calculation that the monthly rent was $1200 rather than $1500 a month.  We respectfully submit that this was done to potentially assist the Appellant in remaining in the leased premises.  We also submit that it must further be remembered that Appellant acknowledged that she had not paid rent since July, 2023 through March, 2024 believing that Respondent should have used the Covid payment to credit her for those particular months.  However, once the Court concluded its inquiry regarding the payments, it was again determined that the Covid payments in question obviously did not cover these later months.  Additionally, even though these later months July, 2023 through March, 2024 were the actual months included in the Respondent’s Complaint regarding unpaid rent, the Court’s own inquiry and factual findings resulted in the Judge obviously concluding that the Appellant was not entitled to a rental credit concerning the 8 months addressed in the Complaint.  Additionally, since the Court was able to reach these finding and conclusions in absence of the Respondent having an actual ledger based on the detailed inquiry that was conducted during the trial, there was nothing unreasonable or improper in relation to the Judge’s factual findings.  Because the Court afforded a reasonable opportunity to both parties to present their respective proofs, we submit that there was nothing improper in the Court’s ruling and there was no abuse of discretion.  For these reasons, we respectfully submit that the Court’s ruling must stand as the Judge in no way abused her discretion in connection with the decision that was reached at the end of the trial on March 2, 2024.