Quinn v. Parkoff Operating Corp., 7470

• Decision Date: 03 December 2019
• Docket Number: Index 155195/17,7470
• Parties: Courtney QUINN, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. PARKOFF OPERATING CORP., et al., Defendants–Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

178 A.D.3d 450
113 N.Y.S.3d 690

Courtney QUINN, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants,
v.
PARKOFF OPERATING CORP., et al., Defendants–Respondents.

7470
Index 155195/17

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

ENTERED: DECEMBER 3, 2019

Newman Ferrara LLP, New York (Roger Sachar of counsel), for appellants.

Katsky Korins LLP, New York (Adrienne B. Koch of counsel), for respondents.

Friedman, J.P., Kapnick, Webber, Oing, Moulton, JJ.

178 A.D.3d 450

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Reed, J.), entered March 19, 2018, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the causes of action alleging violations of the Rent Stabilization Law on behalf of a putative class of tenants, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Initially, we reject defendants' argument that the complaint fails to state a cause of action for rent overcharge claims under the Rent Stabilization Law on behalf of the named plaintiffs and that therefore none of the named plaintiffs could be "typical" representatives of the putative class asserting rent overcharge claims (see CPLR 901[a][3] ).

In light of the Court of Appeals' decision in Maddicks v. Big City Props., LLC , 34 N.Y.3d 116, 114 N.Y.S.3d 1, 137 N.E.3d 456, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 07519 (2019), we find that it was premature to dismiss the class action allegations on the ground that the complaint does not adequately plead the class action prerequisites of typicality and commonality ( CPLR 901[a][3],[2] ). "[A] motion to dismiss should not be equated to a motion for class certification" ( Maddicks , 34 N.Y.3d at 119, 114 N.Y.S.3d 1, 137 N.E.3d 456, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 07519, *1 ). Thus, it is "premature" to dismiss "class claims based on allegations of a methodical attempt to illegally inflate rents" ( id. at 123, 114 N.Y.S.3d 1, 137 N.E.3d 456, at *2 ).

Like the instant plaintiffs, the tenants in Maddicks resided in several buildings owned by entities under common control, and asserted class action claims similar to

...