Opinion
06-01-2017
MEPHISTO MANAGEMENT, LLC, Plaintiff–Appellant–Respondent, v. MOON 170 MERCER, INC., et al., Defendants–Respondents–Appellants.
Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP, New York (Don Abraham of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Cordova & Schwartzman, LLP, Garden City (Jonathan B. Schwartzman of counsel), for respondents-appellants.
Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP, New York (Don Abraham of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Cordova & Schwartzman, LLP, Garden City (Jonathan B. Schwartzman of counsel), for respondents-appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered on or about July 11, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from, granted so much of defendants' motion as sought to dismiss the wrongful eviction claim, and denied so much of the motion as sought to dismiss the fraud claim, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs and the motion denied as to the wrongful eviction claim and granted as to the fraud claim.
The complaint states a cause of action for wrongful eviction based on an invalid warrant (RPAPL 853 ; see e.g. Rodriguez v. 1414–1422 Ogden Ave. Realty Corp., 304 A.D.2d 400, 758 N.Y.S.2d 43 [1st Dept.2003] ; Mayes v. UVI Holdings, 280 A.D.2d 153, 723 N.Y.S.2d 151 [1st Dept.2001] ). Defendant Moon 170 Mercer, Inc.'s service of a 10–day notice to cure a default, commencement of a new holdover proceeding, and filing of a petition alleging that the tenancy had recently been terminated arguably reflect an intent to revive the lease after the issuance of a warrant of eviction in an earlier proceeding (see DiGiglio v. Tepedino, 173 A.D.2d 763, 571 N.Y.S.2d 301 [2d Dept.1991], lv. dismissed 78 N.Y.2d 1007, 575 N.Y.S.2d 457, 580 N.E.2d 1060 [1991] ).
The general allegations in the complaint that defendant Michael Shah lacked an intent to perform a contract when he entered into it are insufficient to support a cause of action sounding in fraud (see New York Univ. v. Continental Ins. Co., 87 N.Y.2d 308, 318, 639 N.Y.S.2d 283, 662 N.E.2d 763 [1995] ; Arnon Ltd [IOM] v. Beierwaltes, 125 A.D.3d 453, 3 N.Y.S.3d 31 [1st Dept.2015] ; compare Graubard Mollen Dannett & Horowitz v. Moskovitz, 86 N.Y.2d 112, 122, 629 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 653 N.E.2d 1179 [1995] [allegation that defendant made false statement of intention is sufficient to support fraud claim] ).
SWEENY, J.P., MAZZARELLI, MOSKOWITZ, MANZANET–DANIELS, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.