Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of this motion:Papers NumberedNotice of Motion and Affidavits/Affirmations/Memos of Law annexed 1Opposition Affidavits/Affirmations and Memo of Law annexed 2Reply Affidavits/Affirmations/Memos of Law annexed 3DECISION/ORDER
*1 Plaintiffs Theresa Maddicks, John Ambrosio, Paul Wilder, Samuel Wilder, Alyssa O’Connell, Johanna S. Karlin, Brian Wagner, Tyler Strickland, Daniel Robles, Elena Ricardo, Liam Cudmore, Jennifer Mak, Joshua Berg, Anish Jain, John Curtin, Jonathan Fieweger, Maria Funcheon, Jordani Sanchez, Melissa Mickens, M.D. Ivey, Devin Elting, Semi Pak, Kaitlin Campbell, Sarah Norris, Mikiala Jamison, Sheresa Jenkins-Risteki, Yanira Gomez and Kristen Piro, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, (collectively “Plaintiffs”) brought this putative class action suit requesting declaratory and injunctive relief for claims alleging improper rent stabilization overcharges against Defendants Big City Properties, LLC,1 Big City Realty Management, LLC, Big City Acquisitions, LLC, 145 Pineapple LLC, 2363 ACP Pineapple, LLC, 408-412 Pineapple, LLC, 510-512 Yellow Apple, LLC, 513 Yellow Apple, LLC, 535-539 West 155 BCR, LLC, 545 Edgecombe BCR, LLC, 603-607 West 139 BCR, LLC, 106-108 Convent BCR, LLC, 110 Convent BCR, LLC, 3660 Broadway BCR, LLC, 3750 Broadway BCR, LLC, 559 West 156 BCR LLC, 605-607 West 141 BCR, LLC, 605 West 151 BCR, LLC, 580 St. Nicholas BCR, LLC and XYZ Corporations 1-99 (collectively “Defendants”).Defendants now move pre-Answer to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(1)(2)(3), (5) and (7). Plaintiffs’ oppose the motion. For the reasons set forth herein, the court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint without prejudice.In their amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege in substance that Defendants or their predecessors illegally and fraudulently engaged in a scheme and pattern to inflate rents in apartments located in over 20 buildings owned or operated by Defendants (“Big City Portfolio”) in violation of the rent stabilization laws. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants and/or their predecessors relied on various methods to illegally overcharge their tenants, including: 1) failing to provide their tenants with rent-stabilized leases as required for Defendants to receive J-51 tax incentives; 2) misrepresenting and obfuscating the costs of Individual Apartment Improvements (“IAIs”) performed on Plaintiffs’ apartments; 3) failing to register rental information necessary to calculate the correct legal regulated rent; and/or 4) inflating the fair market rent on apartments and deregulating such apartments.Plaintiffs’ proposed class includes current and former tenants of Big City Portfolio buildings, from December 6, 2012 to present, who resided in rent-stabilized or unlawfully-deregulated apartments who overpaid their rent based on Defendants’ or their predecessors’ misrepresentations of the amount of the legal regulated rents and improvements. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ proposed sub-class consists of all current tenants of Big City Portfolio buildings, who currently reside in rent-stabilized apartments or unlawfully deregulated apartments.
