Resettlement was properly granted. Such disposition corrected an inconsistency between the judgments, which granted plaintiffs unconditional possession, and the decision, which contained no reference to plaintiffs' claim for possession or suggestion that such relief would be warranted were defendants to satisfy their rent obligations. Indeed, the trial transcript reflects that it was the Trial Justice's view, that possessory relief would be warranted only if defendants failed to pay the. rent arrears ascertained at the trial. Where there is an inconsistency between a judgment and the decision upon which it is based, the decision controls (Di Prospero v. Ford Motor Co., 105 A.D.2d 479, 480).
We further note that this Court has discouraged resort to Supreme Court where complete relief can be accorded by the Housing Part of the Civil Court (Post v. 120 E. End Ave. Corp., 62 N.Y.2d 19, 28; Cox v. J.D. Realty Assocs., 217 A.D.2d 179).
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.