DECISION and ORDER INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Neala Communications LLC (“Neala”) brings this putative class-action action alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations of New York General Business Law §§349 and 350, negligence and negligent misrepresentation against defendant Xerox Corporation (“Xerox”).1 ECF No. 1. In broad strokes, Neala alleges that Xerox made, marketed, and leased certain digital presses and toner that are defective, depriving Neala of the benefit of its bargain. ECF 1. Now before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, ECF No. 12. For the reasons discussed below the motion is granted in part and denied in part. BACKGROUND Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are taken from Neala’s Complaint, ECF 1, and the lease agreement (“Lease Agreement”) entered into between the parties on June 14, 2019, ECF No. 12-2.2 As relevant here, Xerox manufactures, markets, leases, and sells the Versant line of digital printing presses (the “Presses”). (ECF 1 at 13). The Presses use a variety of components, including drums and toner. (Id. at 28). “To make prints, a laser beams images onto a drum, which in turn uses static electricity to attract toner from a cartridge onto the drum.” (Id. at 29). “The drum rolls the toner onto paper and a fuser melts the toner into the paper.” (Id.). If the drums or toner are defective, the prints may be flawed. (Id. at 30). “[T]he Presses are designed to be used in conjunction with certain toner products manufactured by” Xerox, and the service contracts between Neala and Xerox mandate the use of Xerox’s toner products “in conjunction with the Presses.” (Id. at
15, 16). Neala alleges that “[d]efects in certain Versant models…cause the Presses to regularly break down and/or produce flawed prints.” (Id. at 14). Neala alleges that “[t]he Presses, by virtue of their defects, are susceptible to inconsistencies in the toner products.” (Id. at 17). The “inconsistencies, which have been observed in a substantial percentage of the relevant toner products, trigger the defects in the Presses and cause damage to various components thereof, including drums, rollers, and developer housings.” (Id.). The result, Neala alleges, is that “drums in the Presses have routinely and consistently failed much earlier than they are supposed to.” (Id. at 33). For example, Neala alleges that “[d]rums in the Presses should last 10,000 to 50,000 prints, however, they often need replacement after far less usage.” (Id. at 34). Because of this, replacement parts are scarce. (Id. at 35). And because “[t]he problematic toner cannot be ‘flushed’ from devices,” (Id. at 47), “even after devices are fully cleaned and affected parts replaced, issues promptly return.” (Id.) The Lease Agreement requires Xerox to keep the presses in “good working order,” but Neala alleges that Xerox failed to either adequately repair the Presses or replace them as required by the Lease Agreement. (Id. at
