Court Opinion

ID: 9952491
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-19 20:10:06.196524+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:39:51.196030
License: Public Domain

Alford v 72nd Tenants Corp.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30822(U)
                     March 12, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 653335/2018
                  Judge: Debra A. James
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. DEBRA A. JAMES                                              PART   59
                                                                                      Justice
            ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X
                                                                                                  INDEX NO.          653335/2018
             REBECCA ALFORD,
                                                                                                  MOTION DATE         06/08/2023
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.         002
                                                 - V -

             72ND TENANTS CORPORATION, BROWN HARRIS
             STEVENS RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, and
                                                                                                    DECISION + ORDER ON
             BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF 72ND TENANTS
             CORPORATION,                                                                                 MOTION

                                                         Defendants.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 87, 88, 89, 90, 91,
            92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,
            115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,
            136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155, 156,
            157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,
            178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,
            199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219,
            220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230
            were read on this motion to/for                                        SUMMARY JUDGMENT(AFTER JOINDER

                                                                                 ORDER

                      ORDERED that the motion of defendants for summary judgment is

            granted, and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety, with costs

            and disbursements to defendants as taxed by the Clerk upon the

            submission of an appropriate bill of costs; and it is further

                      ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accord-

            ingly.

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                                                Page 1 of 34
             Motion No. 002

[* 1]                                                                      1 of 34
                                                                                          INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

                                                      DECISION

                   Plaintiff Rebecca Alford ("Plaintiff"), a tenant shareholder,

            brings this action against the 72 nd Tenant Corporation                        ("the Co-

            op"), Brown Harris Stevens Residential Management ("Brown Harris")

            and the Board of Directors of 72 nd Tenant Corporation ("the Board") .

            She alleges        that    the   roof area adjacent           to her apartment          ("2 nd

            Floor Roof Area")         is a terrace and is part of the leased premises

            under her proprietary lease agreement. Plaintiff asserts multiple

            claims,      including       breach      of     contract     against   the    Co-op      for

            allegedly failing to maintain the building and the 2 nd Floor Roof

            Area in good repair.

                   The Co-op and the Board                  (together,    "Defendants")    move      for

            summary judgment pursuant to CPLR § 3212.                      Plaintiff opposes the

            motion.

                   Defendants' motion is granted for the reasons stated below.

                                   BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

            The Co-op

                   The Co-op is a residential cooperative corporation that owns

            the apartment building located at 125 East 72 nd Street in Manhattan

            ("the Building"), and Brown Harris is the managing agent for the

            Building      (NYSCEF      Doc    No.    92,     Mazzola     affirmation,    exhibit         D,

            Proprietary Lease, p. 3; NYSCEF Doc No. 231, Mazzola affirmation,

            exhibit G, Derlaga deposition transcript at p. 9:4-14). The Co-op

            is governed by its by-laws, and its Board has, in pertinent part,

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                     Page 2 of 34
             Motion No. 002

                                                          2 of 34
[* 2]
                                                                                                        INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

            discretionary power to "prescribe the manner of maintaining and

            operating the apartment building of the corporation, and any other

            premises acquired by the corporation by purchase or otherwise"

            (NYSCEF Doc No.             92, Mazzola affirmation,                exhibit D,          Proprietary

            Lease,       p. 4-5 and NYSCEF Doc. No. 91, By-Laws, p. 7). The Board

            may also change the house rules applicable to the Building whenever

            it    deems    necessary,          which    are        binding     on    all        tenants      of        the

            Building (NYSCEF Doc. No. 91, id., pp. 7-8).

                    The Co-op leases its apartments to tenant shareholders who

            have the exclusive right to possess their apartments (NYSCEF Doc.

            No. 91, p. 14). The Co-op uses a form of proprietary lease adopted

            by the Board (id., p. 14).                 All proprietary leases are executed in

            the same form,          except for the statement related to the number of

            shares of stock owned by each shareholder (id.)

            Apartment 2B

                    On November 3, 1993, Plaintiff and her late husband purchased

            535    shares        from   the    Co-op    for        apartment        2B   ( "the Apartment")

            (NYSCEF       Doc.    No.    92,    Proprietary           Lease;    NYSCEF           Doc.    No.          154,

            Assignment;          NYSCEF Doc.      No.       150,    affidavit of Plaintiff,                     <JI    6).

            Adjacent to the Apartment is the 2 nd Floor Roof Area, the subject

            of the dispute in this action,                     which Floor Roof Area is located

            above    a    commercial          space    on    the     first     floor       of    the    Building.

            (NYSCEF Doc.          No.    231    [replacing illegible NYSCEF Doc.                          No.         95],

            deposition       transcript          of    Brown        Harris     property           manager             John

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                                   Page 3 of 34
             Motion No. 002

[* 3]                                                       3 of 34
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

            Derlaga, at p. 89:14-20).              Defendants contend that none of the 535

            shares allocated to apartment 2B,                     (which apartment has the lowest

            square footage and the least amount of shares allocated to any of

            the Bline apartments), account for the 2 nd Floor Roof Area (NYSCEF

            Doc. No. 88, Mazzola affirmation,                 ~    9; NYSCEF Doc. No. 97, Plan of

            Cooperative Organization, at p. 31)

                   The 2 nd Floor Roof Area consists of a large flat square with

            a long section leading to a fire escape in case of an emergency

            (NYSCEF Doc. No. 150, affidavit of Plaintiff at~ 7).                                 There are

            two access points to the 2 nd Floor Roof Area: one from Plaintiff's

            dining room and the other through the egress that is part of the

            fire escape (NYSCEF Doc. No. 231, id., p. 35:4-11). Although other

            shareholders can access the 2 nd Floor Roof Area through the egress

            in   instances      of   emergency,        Plaintiff,       otherwise,       has     exclusive

            access to the space (NYSCEF Doc. No. 150, at~~ 7, 22, 27; NYSCEF

            Doc No . 2 31 , at p . 3 9 : 7 - 9, p . 4 0 : 2 3 - 2 5, p . 4 1 : 2 ) .

                   Plaintiff attests           that    the    2 nd Floor Roof Area,              which she

            refers to as "her terrace," was the main inducing factor for her

            and her late husband's purchase of the Apartment, and that she has

            used    the     terrace      since      1993      (NYSCEF     Doc.    No.      96,       Mazzola

            affirmation; NYSCEF Doc. No. 96, Plaintiff's tr at p. 28:8-25 and

            p.   29:2-9; NYSCEF Doc. No.              150,   id.).      On the square portion of

            the 2 nd Floor Roof Area,            she has hosted parties,               installed light

            fixtures,      and kept plants and outdoor furniture                       (NYSCEF Doc. No.

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                            Page 4 of 34
             Motion No. 002

[* 4]                                                   4 of 34
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

            150,    id., at~ 34). The Co-op also replaced a spigot she used to

            water her plants (id.,              ~    31).

                    Plaintiff contends that the Co-op has always acknowledged her

            right      to   use   the    2 nd       Floor    Roof     Area   as   a   terrace         and     has

            continuously referred to the space as a "terrace" (id.,                              ~~    36-42).

            Plaintiff also attests that the 2 nd Floor Roof Area was historically

            used as a terrace by previous shareholders as well,                               as evidenced

            by the built-in flower beds and the glass mirrors hung alongside

            the lattice fences at the time of her purchase in 1993                                    (id.,     ~~

            23-25) .

            The Proprietary Lease

                    Plaintiff and her deceased husband are the assignees of the

            proprietary lease for the Apartment                       (NYSCEF Doc No. 154, Closing

            Statement; NYSCEF Doc. No. 150, affidavit of plaintiff,                               ~    6).

                    The proprietary lease agreement states in pertinent part that

            the lessee,

                    "upon paying the rent and performing the covenants and
                    complying with the conditions on the part of the Lessee to be
                    performed and complied with, as herein set forth, shall, at
                    all times during the terms hereby granted, quietly have, hold
                    and enjoy the apartment without any let, suit, trouble or
                    hinderance from the Lessor"

            (NYSCEF Doc. No. 92, p. 9, Lease, Article I,                          ~   8).     A "lessee of

            an apartment embracing a penthouse, balcony or terrace or a portion

            thereof shall have and enjoy the exclusive use of the balcony or

            terrace appurtenant to such apartment subject to all the applicable

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                            Page 5 of 34
             Motion No. 002

                                                            5 of 34
[* 5]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

            provisions of this lease and to the use of such balcony or terrace

            by the Lessor to enable it to fulfill its obligations hereunder"

            (id., Lease, Article I,             ~    7). If the apartment includes a balcony

            or   terrace,      the    lessee        is   "obligated to              keep    such    terrace         or

            balcony     clean     and    free       from    ice        or   snow,    and    to     provide      and

            maintain proper drainage therefor," and "shall be responsible for

            the maintenance and repair thereof" (id., p. 15, Article II, Lease

                   As to repairs, the proprietary lease states in pertinent part:

                   "The Lessor shall keep in good repair the foundations,
                   sidewalks, gardens, walls, (except ceilings, floors, interior
                   walls of apartments), supports, beams, roofsr terraces,
                   gutters,  fences,   cellars, chimneys, laundry and storage
                   space, entrances and street and court doorways, public halls,
                   public stairways, windows, fire escapes, elevators, pumps and
                   tanks, and all pipes and electrical conduits, together with
                   all plumbing, heating, and other apparatus intended for the
                   general service of the building, except those portions of any
                   foregoing which it is the duty of the Lessee to maintain and
                   keep in good repair as provided in paragraph Seventh of
                   Article II hereof .       [t]he covenants by the Lessor herein
                   contained are subject, however, to the discretionary power of
                   the Board of Directors of the Lessor to prescribe from time
                   to time the manner of maintaining and operating the building
                   and what services and attendants are proper, and subject to
                   the further proviso that there shall be no diminution or
                   abatement of rent or maintenance charge or other compensation
                   for the failure by the Lessor to perform any service or
                   obligation or for interruption or curtailment of service,
                   when such failure, interruption or curtailment shall be due
                   to accident or to alterations or repairs desirable or
                   necessary to be made, or to inability or difficulty in
                   securing supplies or labor, to some other cause not negligence
                   on the part of the Lessor .      "

            (id., p. 6, Lease, Article I, Lease~ 1 and 2.                                  The lease

            further provides, in pertinent part that:

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                                Page 6 of 34
             Motion No. 002

[* 6]                                                      6 of   34
                                                                                               INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

                   "No diminution or abatement of rent, or other compensation,
                   shall be claimed or allowed for inconvenience or discomfort
                   arising from the making of repairs or improvements to the
                   building or its equipment and appliances, (except in the case
                   of damage so extensive as to render the apartment untenantable
                   as provided in Article I, paragraph Third) or from any action
                   taken to comply with the law, ordinance or order of a
                   governmental authority.

            ( id . , p . 2 0 , Le as e , Article I I ,       <JI   16) .

            Construction Performed on the 2 nd Floor Roof Area

                   The evidence in the record shows that the repair work on the

            2 nd Floor Roof Area commenced in 2018 and was completed in 2020.

                   In January 2018,          the Co-op's professional engineer,                    Gilsanz

            Murray Steficek LLP ("GMS"), inspected the commercial space below

            the Apartment and discovered significant cracks and damage to the

            concrete slab supporting the 2 nd Floor Roof Area                          (NYSCEF Doc No.

            101,    Mazzola      affirmation,         exhibit           M)   The   Co-op   subsequently

            retained GMS to oversee the construction of the commercial space

            and the slab repair of the 2 nd Floor Roof Area                           (NYSCEF Doc.       No.

            105, Mazzola affirmation, exhibit Q).

                   To carry out the construction work per the GMS drawings and

            oversight,        the      Co-op      hired            a    contractor,    Pali       Building

            Restoration,       Inc.    ("Pali")      (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 102 and 103, Mazzola

            affirmation, exhibits N and O). Rick Kramer Architects ("RKA") was

            tasked to oversee, among other things, the roof and parapet repair

            work on the        2 nd   Floor Roof Area,                 (NYSCEF Doc No.     106,   Mazzola

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                         Page 7 of 34
             Motion No. 002

[* 7]                                                   7   of 34
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

            affirmation,        exhibits      R) .     RKA' s   role       in    the project was         later

            expanded by the Co-op to include the Building's facade.

                   Before     the    repair project began,                  the    Co-op    applied     for     a

            construction permit with the New York City Department of Buildings

            ("DOB")      (NYSCEF Doc. Nos.           110-111, Mazzola affirmation,                  exhibits

            V and W),        which was        not      issued       for   approximately        four   months

            (NYSCEF Doc. No. 114, Mazzola affirmation, exhibit Z).                              Once issued

            by DOB,      the construction permit was subject to Pali updating its

            proof of insurance (id.).

                   The    Co-op      also   filed       an    application          for   approval     of    the

            planned alterations with the New York City Landmarks Preservation

            Commission ("LPC") because the Building is landmarked (NYSCEF Doc.

            No. 113, Mazzola affirmation, exhibit Y).

                   Once the construction work on the 2 nd Floor Roof Area began

            on July 25, 2018,          the Co-op faced many delays.                      At the inception

            of the project, John Derlaga, the Building's manager, reached out

            to Pali and expressed his frustration that there were not enough

            workers on site           (NYSCEF Doc.           Nos.    122-124, Mazzola affirmation,

            exhibits HH,        II    and J J)       Additionally,              GMS determined,       through

            multiple      probes,      that      the    damage       was    much     more    serious       than

            initially anticipated.

                   When GMS inspected the slab repair work that was performed in

            September, October and December of 2018, it concluded that Pali's

            work did not conform to drawing specifications, its welder was not

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                            Page 8 of 34
             Motion No. 002

[* 8]                                                    8 of   34
                                                                                              INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

            licensed and the welds were of poor quality (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 125-

            127 & 131, Mazzola affirmation,                   exhibits KK, MM QQ).          In December

            2018, RKA also submitted an amendment to the ongoing repair project

            in the Building and explicitly stated that                          all work was        to be

            performed only when the exterior temperature was                           at   45 degrees

            (NYSCEF Doc. No. 129, Mazzola affirmation, exhibit 00)

                    In   February      2019,    the    Co-op        expanded   the   repair     work        to

            include the Building's roof.                 Specifically,         Derlaga informed all

            shareholders by letter that the construction work in the Building

            would expand to include the replacement of the parapets and the

            floor of the 2 nd Floor Roof Area, repairs to the commercial space,

            and     repairs    to   the    Building's         roof,     with   all   work   due     to      be

            completed by the end of the summer                      (NYSCEF Doc. No. 132, Mazzola

            affirmation, exhibit RR). During that time, Pali was going out of

            business and wrapping up its operations causing the Co-op to retain

            Pofi Construction Corporation                   ("Pofi")    as the new contractor for

            the repair work (NYSCEF Doc. No. 231 at pp. 201, 207)

                    The 2 nd Floor Roof Area repairs were completed by February

            2020,    excluding the installation of the pavers because Plaintiff

            alleged that the existing pavers contained lead                          (NYSCEF Doc Nos.

            136-137, Mazzola affirmation, exhibits VV and WW, Seth Roye tr pp

            133-134). However,          the construction project was temporarily shut

            down in mid-March of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic                                (NYSCEF

            Doc. No. 138, Mazzola affirmation, exhibit XX).

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                        Page 9 of 34
             Motion No. 002

[* 9]                                                   9   of 34
                                                                                              INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

                    When work resumed in July 2020, Pofi installed the pavers on

            the 2 nd Floor Roof Area after testing confirmed that they did not

            contain      lead     (NYSCEF      Doc    Nos.     139-140,      Mazzola    affirmation,

            exhibits YY and ZZ) . By September 2 02 0,                     the 2 nd Floor Roof Area

            repair project was completed except for punch list items                             (NYSCEF

            Doc No. 141, Mazzola affirmation, exhibit AAA).

                    During the time that the construction project was taking place

            on the 2 nd Floor Roof Area,               the Co-op informed Plaintiff of the

            damage identified by GMS and directed her to cease using the space

            (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 102-103, Mazzola affirmation, exhibits N and O).

            At one point when the repairs were being made, the conditions from

            the construction caused water accumulation on the 2 nd Floor Roof

            Area,    which the Co-op ordered Pali to address the very next day

            (NYSCEF Doc Nos.          120 and 142 respectively,              Mazzola affirmation,

            exhibits FF and BBB).

            Procedural Posture of the Case

                    Plaintiff commenced this              case    against     the Co-op and Brown

            Harris      only    on    July    30,     2018     (NYSCEF     Doc.   No.   93,     Mazzola

            affirmation,        exhibit E,       Complaint) .       The Co-op and Brown Harris

            moved to dismiss the complaint on August 20, 2018 (NYSCEF Doc. No.

            94,   Mazzola affirmation,              exhibit F) .        On December 11,   2018,       the

            court dismissed the fourth cause of action for breach of fiduciary

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                     Page 10 of 34
             Motion No. 002

[* 10]                                                 10 of 34
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

            duty against the Board 1 and the fifth cause of action for negligence

            against Brown Harris and the Co-op                        (NYSCEF Doc No.           213,    Simoni

            affirmation,            exhibit I)       The court also dismissed the complaint

            against Brown Harris in its entirety (id.).

                      On April 15, 2019,            the parties filed a stipulation to allow

            Plaintiff to file a supplemental summons and amended complaint,

            adding the Board as a party (NYSCEF Doc No. 58). On April 16, 2019,

            Plaintiff         served a       supplemental        summons     and amended complaint,

            asserting almost the same exact causes of action as in her original

            complaint          (NYSCEF     Doc    No.    89,   Mazzola      affirmation,        exhibit A,

            amended complaint). However, Plaintiff added a cause of action for

            breach of the warranty of habitability against the Board as her

            fourth cause of action and a breach of fiduciary duty against the

            Co-op       as    her    fifth     cause     of    action      (id.)     On   May    16,         2019,

            Defendants          answered      the    amended     complaint         (NYSCEF   Doc       No.     90,

            Mazzola affirmation,              exhibit B). Defendants now move for summary

            judgment. Plaintiff opposes.

                      Both parties have submitted affidavits from experts on the

            issue of whether the duration of the Co-op's repair project on the

            2 nd Floor Roof Area was reasonable. In support of their motion for

            summary judgment, Defendants submitted an affidavit from Benjamin

            1
             Al though the Board was not named as a party in the initial
            complaint, Plaintiff asserted a cause of action against the Board
            in the body of the complaint.
                653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                         Page 11 of34
                Motion No. 002

                                                          11 of 34
[* 11]
                                                                                             INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

            M.   Cornelius        (Cornelius),         who    is   licensed     as    a    professional

            engineer, civil engineer, and structural engineer (NYSCEF Doc No.

            145, Cornelius affidavit). Mr. Cornelius avers that although the

            repairs on the 2 nd Floor Roof Area took 33 months to complete, the

            time    was     reasonable:          the    project         arose   out   of     unforeseen

            conditions, the extent of the damage came to light as the project

            progressed,       a contractor needed to be selected for the work,                           and

            the Co-op had to secure the necessary permits from both the DOB

            and LPC. Additionally, the Building expanded the repair project at

            a time when the construction industry in New York City was busy

            (id., p. 5)       Plaintiff submitted a rebuttal affidavit from Douglas

            R.   Korves     (Korves) ,     who    is    a    registered architect          licensed to

            practice in New York. Mr. Korves attests that the time to complete

            the 2 nd Floor Roof Area repair project was unreasonable                              (NYSCEF

            Doc. No. 179, Korves affidavit, pp. 9-10). Per Mr. Korves, the Co-

            op should have performed an emergency repair of the under slab and

            the 2 nd Floor Roof Area,            and not couple this repair project with

            other work in the Building because it resulted in an unreasonable

            delay (id.)

                                                        DISCUSSION

                   A party moving for summary judgment under CPLR § 3212 "must

            make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter

            of law,     tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence

            of any material issues of fact" (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                        Page 12 of 34
             Motion No. 002

[* 12]                                                  12 of 34
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

            320,    324   [1986])          The "facts must be viewed in the                    light most

            favorable to the non-moving party" (Vega v Restani Constr. Corp.,

            18 NY3d 499,          503     [2012]   [internal quotation marks and citation

            omitted]).       Once the moving party has met this prima facie burden,

            the burden shifts to the non-moving party to furnish evidence in

            admissible       form       sufficient      to    raise     a   material       issue      of     fact

            (Alvarez,      68 NY2d at 324). The moving party's "[f]ailure to make

            such     prima      facie      showing      requires        a   denial     of    the       motion,

            regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers" (id.)

                    A. Standing

                    As a preliminary matter, Defendants argue, for the first time,

            that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this lawsuit because the

            2 nd Floor Roof Area is not part of the demised premises.                                 Pursuant

            to CPLR § 3211          (e),    the failure to raise the defense of standing

            in an answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss constitutes a

            waiver of the defense (Eida v Bd. of Mgrs. of 135 Condominium, 166

            AD3d 561,      561    [1st Dept 2018]; Dougherty v City of Rye,                            63 NY2d

            989,    991    [1984]).        Nonetheless,       "a waiver may be              retracted          'by

            assertion        of     the     defense      in     connection          with     the       summary

            judgment .... an unpleaded defense may not only be invoked to defeat

            a motion for summary judgment, but in the absence of surprise or

            prejudice to,         or objection by,            the opposing party,             it may also

            serve    as   the     basis     for    an   affirmative         grant    of     such      relief'"

            (Nikita Banks v Peace of Mind Realty,                       2019 NY Slip Op 32689[U],*

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                              Page 13 of 34
             Motion No. 002

[* 13]                                                  13 of 34
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

            *13-14        [Sup Ct,      NY County 2019]         [citations        omitted];           see     also

            Sullivan v American Airlines, Inc., 80 AD3d 600, 602 [2d Dept 2011]

            ["an unpleaded defense may serve as the basis for granting summary

            judgment in the absence of surprise or prejudice to the opposing

            party"]; BMX Worldwide v Coppola N.Y.C.,                          Inc.,    287 AD2d 383,            384

            [1st Dept 2001]). "[P]rejudice or surprise is ameliorated however,

            when     it    is    shown    that   the    plaintiff       has     had     a    full     and     fair

            opportunity to respond and oppose the defense being asserted in

            connection with summary judgment"                   (Antwi v HVT,           Inc.,       24 Misc 3d

            1250 [A],      2009    NY    Slip    Op    51937 [U],       *11     [Sup    Ct,     Bronx       2009]

            [citations omitted]).

                   Here,        Defendants failed to raise the defense of standing in

            their answer and their motion to dismiss,                            therefore waiving it

            (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 90, answer to amended complaint; NYSCEF Doc.

            No.    210,     Simoni       affirmation     in    opposition         to        instant     motion,

            exhibit       F) .   Defendants      thus    waived     the       affirmative        defense            of

            standing but retracted their waiver by asserting it for the first

            time in their motion for summary judgment.                                As Plaintiff fully

            opposed the issue, both parties having an opportunity to address

            such defense in their papers,                 the court finds that Plaintiff is

            not prejudiced by the court's consideration of the issue.                                     In any

            event,    Defendants'         affirmative defense of standing fails because

            defendants have not prima facie established that the 2 nd Floor Roof

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                               Page 14 of 34
             Motion No. 002

[* 14]                                                  14 of 34
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

            Area is not part of Plaintiff's demised premises,                                   as discussed

            infra.

                    Turning to the issue on whether the 2 nd Floor Roof Area is a

            part of the demised premises, "[a] lease agreement, like any other

            contract,       essentially involves a bargained-for exchange between

            the parties"          (Rowe v Great Atl.          &     Pac.     Tea Co. r        4 6 NY2d 62,         67

            [ 1978 J)      "It is the proprietary lease which creates a landlord-

            tenant relationship between the shareholder and the cooperative

            corporation"          (Blumenfeld v Stable 49,               Ltd.,      62 Misc 3d 1208 [A],

            2018     NY    Slip    Op     51958[U],       *23-24        [Sup      Ct,    NY     County     2018]

            [citations            omitted]) .          "The       relationship                between          the

            shareholder/lessees             of     a     cooperative           corporation           and       the

            corporation is determined by the certificate of incorporation, the

            corporation's bylaws and the proprietary lease"                               ( Fe Bland v Two

            Trees Mgt. Co., 66 NY2d 556, 563 [1985]).                          Thus, ordinary contract

            principles apply in interpreting those documents (see Kralik v 239

            E.   79th St.        Owners Corp.,         5 NY3d 54,       57     [2005]; see also George

            Backer        Mgt.    Corp.    v     Acme    Quilting          Co.,     46    NY2d      211,       217

            [1978]      [stating in pertinent part that "a lease is subject to the

            rules of construction applicable to any other agreement"]). Courts

            have previously held that the offering plan and the lease determine

            the extent of tenant's rights to the roof                             ( see Fairmont Tenants

            Corp.    v Bratt,       162 AD3d 442         [1st Dept 2018]; 1050 Fifth Ave.                           v

            May, 247 AD2d 243, 243-244 [1st Dept 1998])

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                              Page 15 of 34
             Motion No. 002

[* 15]                                                   15 of 34
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

                    "In cases of contract interpretation, it is well settled that

            'when    parties        set      down    their   agreement     in   a        clear,      complete

            document, their writing should                      . be enforced according to its

            terms'" (South Rd. Assoc., LLC v International Bus. Machs. Corp.,

            4 NY3d 272,       277      [2005]       [citations omitted]). "'The best evidence

            of what parties to a written agreement intend is what they say in

            writing'"       ( see Greenfield v           Philles    Records,        98    NY2d      5 62,     5 69

            [2002]      [citations omitted]). If the terms of a contract, however,

            are   "susceptible          of    two     reasonable    interpretations,"              then       the

            contract is deemed ambiguous (Ellington v EMI Music, Inc., 24 NY3d

            239, 244 [2014]          [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).

                    Applying the law to the facts at bar,                    there is an issue of

            fact as to whether the 2 nd Floor Roof Area is part of Plaintiff's

            demised premises.             The proprietary lease describes the Apartment

            as "all that certain space on the second floor of the building,

            known    as Apartment            2-B,    and herein     referred as           the     apartment"

            (NYSCEF Doc No.          92, p. 3)          The proprietary lease, however, does

            not describe what "all that certain space" encompasses or describe

            the number of rooms or other areas that the Apartment contains.

            The     language      is      thus      "sufficiently       ambiguous         to    permit        the

            introduction of extrinsic evidence to discern the parties' intent

            as to whether the [P]laintiff has the exclusive right to use" the

            2 nd Floor Roof Area (Koretz v 363 E. 76th St. Corp., 178 AD3d 445,

            446 [1st Dept 2019]).

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                             Page 16 of 34
             Motion No. 002

[* 16]                                                   16 of 34
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

                    To give the "proprietary lease meaning," the court may review

            the     Co-op's      offering        plan   submitted        by    Defendants        (Fairmont

            Tenants Corp, 162 AD3d at 442; see also 1050 Fifth Ave., 247 AD2d

            at    243)      There      is   no    ambiguity     in the        Co-op' s   offering plan

            (NYSCEF      Doc.    No.      97,    Plan   of    Cooperative           Organization        dated

            September       8,   19 64)     that    there     is    no     "terrace"      or     "balcony"

            allocated to Plaintiff's Apartment.                     Specifically, Schedule C of

            the offering plan shows only the penthouse has a terrace as denoted

            by "Ter" next         to    its      description       (NYSCEF Doc No.         97,     p.     34) .

            According to the offering plan submitted, the 2 nd Floor Roof Area

            is not allocated to the Apartment (see Fairmont Tenants Corp, 162

            AD3d at 442).

                    Plaintiff, however, argues that there is no evidence that the

            offering plan submitted by Defendants is valid or that it was filed

            with the New York State Attorney General's Office as required by

            13 NYCRR 17.4 (e).

                    In   response,        Defendants      argue     that      the    "ancient      document

            rule" applies, making the document self-authenticating.                               However,

            looking at the document itself, it is not clear to the court, from

            the first page or the content, that the copy of the offering plan

            that was submitted was filed and approved by the Attorney General.

            Mr. Mazzola's affirmation only identifies the exhibit as the "Co-

            op' s   Offering      Plan"       without    providing       any    further     description

            (NYSCEF Doc No. 88, Mazzola affirmation, p. 14).

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                           Page 17 of 34
             Motion No. 002

[* 17]                                                  17 of 34
                                                                                                              INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

                    Notwithstanding Defendants' argument, the court is unable to

            apply     the      ancient            document        rule      here.          "Under      the        'ancient

            document'       rule,      a record or document which is found to be more

            than 30 years old,                    and which is proven to have come from proper

            custody      and    is        itself          free     from     any        indication       of       fraud       or

            invalidity,        'proves itself'"                   (Tillman v Lincoln Warehouse Corp.,

            72    AD2d   40,     44       [1st      Dept     1979]        [citations           omitted]).         "If    the

            genuineness         of    an          ancient    document            is    established,          it    may       be

            received to prove the truth of the facts that it recites" (id. at

            45).    However,          the         genuineness        of      the        document      has        not    been

            established,         as       Defendants             failed     to        submit    an   affidavit          from

            someone      with        personal             knowledge        to     authenticate             the    Co-op's

            offering plan            as       a    business        record or           provide       other proof             of

            custody         (Dodge        V        Gallatin,         130         NY     117,        133-134        [1891];

            Thistlethwaite v Thistlethwaite,                          200 Misc 64,             66    [Sup Ct, Monroe

            County 1950]).            Accordingly, Defendants have failed to demonstrate

            that the 2 nd Floor Roof Area is not part of the demised premises,

            and therefore Defendants do not prevail on their lack                                          of standing

            defense.

                    B. Breach of Contract Against the Co-Op

                    In her first cause of action,                           Plaintiff alleges a breach of

            contract against the Co-op.                          Plaintiff's main allegation is that

            the    Co-op       breached             its     obligation           toward        her    by     performing

            construction work on the 2 nd Floor Roof Area in a "harassingly slow

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                                        Page 18 of 34
             Motion No. 002

[* 18]                                                           18 of 34
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

            manner," preventing her from using it for an unreasonably long

            period of time            (NYSCEF Doc. No. 89, Amended Complaint, at p. 4).

            Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate a breach of the

            terms of the proprietary lease even if the 2 nd Floor Roof Area were

            part of the demised premises.

                      To prevail on a cause of action for breach of contract,                                     a

            plaintiff         must     prove:       (1)    the    existence        of   a   contract,        (2)

            plaintiff's performance thereunder,                        ( 3)     the defendant's breach,

            and      ( 4)   resulting damages             (Harris v Seward Park Hous. Corp.,                     79

            AD3d 425, 426 [1st Dept 2010]).

                      There is no dispute that a proprietary lease agreement for

            the      Apartment       exists     between       Plaintiff         and   the   Co-op.    In     her

            Amended Complaint, Plaintiff identifies numerous provisions in the

            proprietary lease to show the Co-op's obligations to make repairs

            for which she alleges there was a breach.                              Under the provisions

                (lease, Article I,          section 1) ,         as cited by Plaintiff,           the Co-op

            "shall keep in good repair" "terraces," "public halls," and "fire

            escapes" The Co-op must,                  under section two of Article I, 2 also

            "maintain          and    manage      the      building        as    first-class      apartment

            building and shall               keep the        elevators        and the public halls .

            . clean."        Under Article II, section 12, of the lease, the Co-op is

            2
             Although Plaintiff cites the second section of "Article II" in
            her Amended Complaint, this quoted provision is in fact located
            under Article I.
                653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                         Page 19 of 34
                Motion No. 002

[* 19]                                                      19 of 34
                                                                                             INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

            also to "restore the apartment to its proper and usual condition",

            after making repairs.

                   Plaintiff alleges that she meets the second element of breach

            of contract because she has paid the Co-op                        for   the     535 shares

            allocated to the Apartment and has performed all her obligations

            under the proprietary lease.                 She argues that she has established

            the third element of the cause of action as well because the Co-

            op    breached     the    provisions        of    the   proprietary     lease    that       she

            identified, in undertaking repairs on the 2 nd Floor Roof Area in a

            "harassingly slow matter," precluding her from using the area for

            an unreasonably long time.

                   Plaintiff's breach of contract claim fails even assuming that

            the 2 nd Floor Roof Area were part of Plaintiff's demised premises.

            First, the provisions cited by Plaintiff in her Amended Complaint

            essentially state that the Co-op is responsible for,                          among other

            things, maintaining terraces in good repair.                      The evidence in the

            record      show that      the    Co-op met        that     obligation by undertaking

            repairs that were required under the agreement; made repairs on

            the 2 nd Floor Roof Area/"terrace" after it discovered that there

            were significant cracks and damage to the 2 nd Floor Roof Area and

            the    commercial        space     below;        and    thoroughly   investigated           and

            executed the repairs in consultation with the licensed engineers

            and architects.

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                       Page 20 of 34
             Motion No. 002

[* 20]                                                  20 of 34
                                                                                               INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

                   Plaintiff admits that the Co-op made repairs as obligated by

            the proprietary lease once the damage on the 2 nd Floor Roof Area

            was   discovered.        Nonetheless,          Plaintiff        challenges   the     time         in

            which the repairs were made and argues that the Co-op violated the

            proprietary lease by "not timely engaging in the repairs and then

            elongating the repair process and not returning the pavers to the

            Terrace until October 13, 2020 .                         "and by failing to "promptly

            restore as mandated by the Lease."                        However,     in support of this

            argument,       Plaintiff      fails     to     cite     to    any provisions     under       the

            proprietary lease that required the Co-op to carry out the repairs

            within      a   specific      time.     Not     one      of    the   provisions    cited          by

            Plaintiff in her Amended Complaint set a "reasonable" time in which

            repairs must be completed.                 In fact,           the proprietary lease does

            not set any such standards.              Plaintiff's cause of action for breach

            of contract merely amounts to a disagreement about the amount of

            time in which the Co-op made the repairs, not a breach of contract.

                   Although the parties have submitted evidence from experts who

            disagree on whether the construction project on the 2 nd Floor Roof

            Area took an unreasonably long time,                      this evidence is irrelevant

            as terms of the proprietary lease contains no provisions concerning

            the reasonableness of the time for repairs.                            In fact,    under the

            lease, Plaintiff's right to use the "terrace" would be subject to

            the Co-op's repair and maintenance responsibilities. Moreover, the

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                         Page 21 of 34
             Motion No. 002

[* 21]                                                    21 of 34
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

            lease terms explicitly absolve the Co-op from                                   any liability for

            the inconvenience or discomfort arising from the repairs.

                    Finally,       Plaintiff           alleges         that     the    Co-op      breached       the

            proprietary lease because it violated the New York City Housing

            Maintenance Code             (HMC),      including HMC § 27-2009.2, by failing to

            maintain the Building and failing to post the Safe Construction

            Bill of Rights.             This argument does not prevail because Plaintiff

            lacks     standing      to      enforce          such      violations         under    the     Housing

            Maintenance Code.             Under controlling case law, when the DOB issues

            notices of violations "against the Co-op, plaintiff []                                   [is]    under

            no   obligation        to     respond        to     them,"        and     a   private        litigant,

            "lack[s]          standing     to     enforce        the     DOB's      order    to    correct       the

            violation" (Wachtel v Park Ave & 84th St., Inc., 180 AD3d 545, 546

            [1st Dept 2020]         [citations omitted]).                  Additionally, the HMC § 27-

            2009.2      (g)    explicitly states that the provisions of the section

            are to be "enforced by the department or department of buildings."

            Consequently,          only        the     New     York      City       Department      of     Housing

            Preservation and the Department of Buildings can enforce the Co-

            op's violations of the Housing Maintenance Code (see also Delgado

            v New York City Hous.                    Auth.,     66 AD3d 607,          608    [1st Dept 2009]

            ["Only the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Housing

            Preservation and Development is authorized to seek such relief or

            other     sanctions          and     remedies         for     violations         of    the     Housing

            Maintenance Code (NY City Charter§ 1802 [1]"]).

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                                Page 22 of 34
             Motion No. 002

[* 22]                                                        22 of 34
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

                    C. The Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment against the Co-op

                    In her second cause of action, Plaintiff alleges a breach of

            the covenant of quiet enjoyment against the Co-op (NYSCEF Doc. No.

            89,    Amended     Complaint,          at   p.   5).     She    alleges        that    the     Co-op

            unreasonably performed repair                    work    on     the   2 nd    Floor Roof Area

            precluding her from its use and ousting her from her own "terrace"

            (id.).      Defendants         argue    that     there    was    no     ouster       because       the

            repairs were made with Plaintiff's consent                            (NYSCEF Doc No.            147,

            Defendants' Memorandum of Law, p. 14).

                    "To make out a prima facie case of breach of the covenant of

            quiet      enjoyment,      a    tenant      must    establish         that     the    landlord's

            conduct substantially and materially deprived the tenant of the

            beneficial        use    and      enjoyment        of     the     premises"           (Jackson         v

            Westminster House Owners Inc., 24 AD3d 249, 250 [1st Dept 2005]).

            "There must be an actual ouster,                    either total or partial,                   or if

            the eviction is constructive, there must have been an abandonment

            of the premises by the tenant" (id.).

                    Assuming the 2 nd Floor Roof Area is a part of the demised

            premises,      the Co-op's repairs of the space do not amount to an

            eviction.       First, there was no constructive eviction because there

            is    no   evidence     that      Plaintiff        abandoned      the        demised premises.

            However,     Plaintiff argues that she was ousted from the 2 nd Floor

            Roof Area due to the repairs made by the Co-op. "[A]lterations to

            the leased premises, made with the consent of the tenant, do not

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                              Page 23 of 34
             Motion No. 002

[* 23]                                                   23 of 34
                                                                                          INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

            amount to an eviction,             no matter how extensive or the degree of

            interference with the tenant's occupancy" (Jackson, id.)                           The Co-

            op' s   entry to the 2 nd Floor Roof Area was made pursuant to the

            right the Co-op reserved in the proprietary lease, which was signed

            and consented by Plaintiff.               For these reasons, Plaintiff's second

            cause of action is dismissed.

                    D. The Breach of Warranty of Habitability Against the Co-op
                    and the Board of Directors

                    For her third and fourth causes of action of breach of the

            warranty      of    habitability         against       the   Co-op   and   the      Board,

            respectively, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to maintain

            the Co-op in good repair as required by Real Property Law§ 235-

            b.      She    alleges      that     Defendants        failed   to   timely    cure       the

            conditions and thus prevented her from using the 2 nd Floor Roof

            Area, as well as compromised the fire egress through the 2 nd Floor

            Roof Area for a long period of time                    (NYSCEF Doc No. 89 at pp. 3,

            6-7). Defendants argue that the loss of an amenity like a terrace

            is not a breach of warranty.

                    Section 235-b of the Real Property Law, provides in pertinent

            part:

                    "In every written or oral lease or rental agreement for
                    residential premises the landlord or lessor shall be deemed
                    to covenant and warrant that the premises so leased or rented
                    and all areas used in connection therewith in common with
                    other tenants or residents are fit for human habitation and
                    for the uses reasonably intended by the parties and that the
                    occupants of such premises shall not be subjected to any
                    conditions which would be dangerous, hazardous or detrimental

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                     Page 24 of 34
             Motion No. 002

[* 24]                                                 24 of 34
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

                   to their life, health or safety. When any such condition has
                   been caused by the misconduct of the tenant or lessee or
                   persons under his direction or control,       it shall not
                   constitute a breach of such covenants and warranties."

            Further, Real Property Law§ 235-b applies to proprietary leases

            (see Matter of 12-14 E.              64th Owners Corp. v Hixon, 130 AD3d 425,

            425    [1st Dept 2015]). Additionally,                    under the Multiple Dwelling

            Law,    and HMC §         27-005,     the    Co-op      is     required to maintain                the

            premises in good repair.

                   Nonetheless,          "[t]he     landlord          is   no     absolute     insurer             of

            services which do not affect habitability nor is it a guarantor of

            'every      amenity       customarily         rendered          in     the    landlord-tenant

            relationship'"         (Suarez v Rivercross Tenants'                    Corp.,    107 Misc 2d

            135, 139 [App Term, 1st Dept 1981], quoting Park W. Mgt. Corp. v

            Mitchell,       47    NY2d    316,     327     [1979]).        "[T]he        implied     warranty

            protects only against conditions that materially affect the health

            and safety of         tenants        or deficiencies            that    'in the     eyes        of a

            reasonable person ... deprive the tenant of those essential functions

            which a residence is expected to provide'"                             (Solow v Wellner,               86

            NY2d 582, 588 [1995]           [citation omitted]).

                   As a preliminary matter,                Plaintiff's breach of warranty of

            habitability claim against the Board fails because "section 235-b

            only applies         to   the parties         to    the      lease"     (Adler v       Ogden CAP

            Props.,     LLC,     42 Misc 3d 613,          622   [Sup Ct, NY County 2013],                    affd

            126 AD3d 544 [1st Dept 2015])                   Since the Board is not a party to

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                              Page 25 of 34
             Motion No. 002

[* 25]                                                   25 of 34
                                                                                            INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

            the proprietary lease,             the    fourth cause of action is dismissed

            against such defendant.

                    Assuming      the    2 nd Floor Roof Area were part              of    the    leased

            premises,       the    Co-op     did     not    breach      the   implied     warranty          of

            habitability.         While the Co-op is responsible for maintaining the

            Building in good repair,               there are no allegations by Plaintiff

            that the Apartment was uninhabitable or that it did not serve the

            essential       function       that    it      was   expected     to   serve.      Instead,

            Plaintiff's claim involves the uninhabitable condition of the 2 nd

            Floor Roof Area while it was under repair. "[A]                        terrace that is

            safe and suitable for plaintiff's own exclusive, outdoor use is an

            amenity,     not an essential function that the co-op must provide"

            (Musey v 425 E. 86 Apts. Corp., 154 AD3d 401, 405 [1st Dept 2017]).

            Thus,    even if the 2 nd Floor Roof Area were part of the demised

            premises as a terrace, it would constitute an amenity and it would

            not be an essential function of the Apartment that the Co-op must

            provide.

                    There is also no evidence that the conditions caused by the

            repairs were dangerous,               hazardous or detrimental to Plaintiff's

            life,    heal th      or    safety.      The     evidence     preponderates       that      the

            conditions on the 2 nd Floor Roof Area for which Plaintiff is suing

            were a direct result of necessary repairs undertaken by the Co-op

            to fulfill its obligations pursuant to the proprietary lease and

            to eliminate any hazardous conditions that the damage                              imposed.

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                       Page 26 of 34
             Motion No. 002

[* 26]                                                  26 of 34
                                                                                                         INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

            These conditions thus "d[o] not fall within the purview of a breach

            of the warranty of habitability, especially where said renovations

            will        inure   to    the     benefit       of    the     respondent-shareholders                        by

            protecting their investments in a properly maintained building"

            (315-321 E. Parkway Dev. Fund Corp. v Wint-Howell, 9 Misc 3d 644,

            648    [Civ Ct,         Kings County 2005]).                Further,      the evidence in the

            record shows that,              for her safety, Plaintiff was informed to not

            use the 2 nd Floor Roof Area while it was being repaired, and when

            water accumulated, the Co-op ordered the contractor to remedy the

            issue         (NYSCEF    Doc    No.    120    [e-mail        dated August             6,     2018      from

            plaintiff to Derlaga]                 and 142      [e-mail dated August 7,                   2018 from

            Derlaga to contractor], respectively).

                    As to Plaintiff's claim related to the fire egress located on

            the    2 nd    Floor     Roof    Area,       she     "individually           lacks         standing          to

            maintain         claims        based    on    purported            fire   and       building           code

            violations in the common areas of the building (involving access

            to the fire escape/roof area of the building,                                 and inspection of

            the    building's         sprinkler       system       [.                 [ s] ince        such    claims

            involve        injury     to    the    corporation,           they     can    only be           asserted

            derivatively on behalf of the corporation" (White v Gilbert, 2012

            NY Slip Op 32042[U], *23-24                   [Sup Ct, NY County 2012])                      Here,       the

            evidence submitted shows that the DOB issued the Co-op a violation

            for failing to provide unobstructed exit passageway and directed

            it     to     correct     the     issue      (NYSCEF         Doc    No.      174,     affidavit              of

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                                    Page 27 of 34
             Motion No. 002

[* 27]                                                    27 of 34
                                                                                            INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

            plaintiff,      exhibit 24).          Notwithstanding the dispute on whether

            the 2 nd Floor Roof Area is part of Plaintiff's demised premises,

            there is no dispute that the fire egress is a common area of the

            Building that other shareholders may access in case of a                             fire.

            Such a claim is thus derivative and Plaintiff lacks standing to

            maintain it individually based on a purported fire and a building

            code violation.

                    Although Plaintiff cites the decision of the Appellate Term,

            First    Department,        in    Israel     Realty     LLC   v   Shkolnikov,     for    the

            proposition that Defendants breached the warranty of habitability,

            the facts of such case is distinguishable from those at bar.                                 In

            Israel Realty LLC v Shkolnikov, 59 Misc 3d 148[A], 2018 NY Slip Op

            50812[U]      [App Term,      1st Dept 2018]),          the appeals panel held that

            there was a breach of habitability because the tenant was unable

            to use the patio area that was nearly twice the size of the interior

            apartment,      and thus an essential function that the residence was

            expected to provide (id. at *2)                  Further, the scaffolding work in

            Israel Realty LLC affected the air,                    light and ventilation inside

            the apartment posing potential threats to the health and safety of

            the tenant (id. at *2).              Plaintiff has submitted no evidence that

            such infiltration occurred in the instant case.

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                    Page 28 of 34
             Motion No. 002

[* 28]                                                 28 of 34
                                                                                           INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

                      For all the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss

            Plaintiff's third and fourth causes of action is granted. 3

                             F. The Sixth Cause of Action for Negligence Against the
                             Co-op 4

                      For her sixth cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that the Co-

            op had a duty to maintain the Building                         (including the 2 nd Floor

            Roof Area)         and to undertake repairs promptly and lawfully, which

            they allegedly failed to do (NYSCEF Doc No. 89 at p. 8).                       Plaintiff

            contends that such failure caused her to lose the opportunity to

            sell the unit and the construction project damaged her property,

            such as her plants and planters.                         Defendants argue,   among other

            things,        that the claim is duplicative of her breach of contract

            claim.

                      To prevail in a negligence claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate

            "(1) the existence of a duty on defendant's part as to plaintiff;

                (2)   a breach of this duty;            and    (3)   injury to the plaintiff as a

            result thereof"             (Akins v Glens Falls City School Dist.,               53 NY2d

            325, 333 [1981])               When a negligence claim "[i]s fundamentally no

            3
              In her fifth cause of action, Plaintiff alleges a breach of
            fiduciary duty against the Co-op on the basis that the Co-op
            ignored her requests to timely cure the conditions on the 2 nd Floor
            Roof Area precluding her from its use (NYSCEF Doc No. 89 at p. 7).
            The court already dismissed Plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty
            against the Co-op when it decided Defendants' motion to dismiss
             (NYSCEF Doc No. 50, Court's Decision and Order).
            4 As stated supra, this court previously dismissed all the claims

            against Brown Harris. Consequently, the court will only address
            the sixth cause of action in relation to the Co-op.
                653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                  Page 29 of 34
                Motion No. 002

[* 29]                                                    29 of 34
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

            more than a breach of contract claim, and, absent the allegations

            of     a    duty   owed by defendant          independent          of    the    contract          (the

            proprietary lease), a valid cause of action is not stated" (Wapnick

            v Seven Park Ave. Corp.,              240 AD2d 245,          247    [1st Dept 1997]; see

            also Baker v 16 Sutton Place Apt. Corp., 2 AD3d 119, 121 [1st Dept

            2003]). Further, courts have held that "there is no cause of action

            for 'negligent performance of [a] contract'                         (Wapnickr 240 AD2d at

            247)

                       Here,   Plaintiff's     alleges      that    the    Co-op negligently made

            repairs on the 2 nd Floor Roof Area.                    Assuming the 2 nd Floor Roof

            Area is part of the leased premises, Plaintiff's negligence claim

            is based on the same factual allegations as those on her breach of

            contract claim.          As the Co-op's duty to Plaintiff to make repairs

            arises       solely under       the    proprietary          lease       and    seeks     the     same

            damages,       the   claim is      duplicative        and barred by her claim for

            breach of the proprietary lease.

                       G. The Seventh Cause of Action for Negligence Against the
                       Board

                       For her seventh cause of action,                 Plaintiff alleges that the

            Board was negligent because it did not undertake prompt repairs in

            the Building, including the repair work on the 2 nd Floor Roof Area

            (NYSCEF Doc No. 89 at p. 8).                She argues that such failure caused

            her to lose her opportunity to sell the unit and the construction

            project damaged her property.                   Defendants move to dismiss                       this

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                              Page 30 of 34
             Motion No. 002

[* 30]                                                 30 of 34
                                                                                             INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

            cause of action on the same basis as their challenge to the sixth

            cause of action.

                   Defendants'        motion to dismiss Plaintiff's seventh cause of

            action      is   granted.         The     business      judgment    rule    is   the     legal

            standard that           applies      in   reviewing     the   Board's      decisions       made

            within their authority, as "business judgment must rest with the

            corporate directors"            (Matter of Levandusky v One Fifth Ave. Apt.

            Corp.,      75   NY2d    530,     539     [1990]    [ internal     quotation marks           and

            citations omitted]; see also 40 W. 67th St.                        v Pullman,      100 NY2d

            147,   149-150      [2003]      ["the business          judgment rule is the proper

            standard for        judicial review when evaluating decisions made by

            residential cooperative cooperations"]).

                   "[T]he business judgment rule prohibits judicial inquiry into
                   actions of corporate directors 'taken in good faith and in
                   the exercise of honest judgment in the lawful and legitimate
                   furtherance   of  corporate   purposes.'  So   long  as   the
                   corporation's directors have not breached their fiduciary
                   obligation to the corporation,     'the exercise of [their
                   powers]  for the common and general interests of the
                   corporation may not be questioned, although the results show
                   that what they did was unwise or inexpedient.'"

            (Matter of Levandusky, 75 NY2d at 537-538 [citations omitted]).

                   Here, the evidence shows that the Co-op's actions through the

            Board's decisions concerning the repair project on the 2 nd Floor

            Roof Area were in accordance with the provisions in the proprietary

            lease and the Co-op' s               bylaws.   The actions         taken were      a proper

            exercise of the Board's business judgment because it is within the

            discretionary power             of    the   Board      to   prescribe   "the manner              of

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                        Page 31 of 34
             Motion No. 002

[* 31]                                                  31 of 34
                                                                                                INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

            maintaining       and    operating       the    building      and    what     services          and

            attendants are proper" (NYSCEF Doc. No. 92, p. 4-5; see also NYSCEF

            Doc No. 91, p. 7). The evidence before this court establishes that

            the building-wide renovation project was conducted after damage

            was found to exist on the 2 nd Floor Roof Area and the commercial

            space below.            The record at bar further shows that the repairs

            made were necessary because the concrete slab damage was serious

            and presented potential danger to not only Plaintiff, who was using

            the 2 nd Floor Roof Area,             but also to anyone in the retail space

            below.        Nor is there is any dispute that the project was approved

            by the Board pursuant to the Co-op's bylaws, and the repairs thus

            made     to    benefit    the    collective        interest    of     the    shareholders,

            including Plaintiff.

                   There     is no     evidence      in the      record to       indicate,        nor does

            Plaintiff argue, that the Board's decisions were not in furtherance

            of the common and general interest of the corporation or that they

            were made       in bad faith.           Instead,      the evidence          shows     that      the

            repairs made to the 2 nd Floor Roof Area, the commercial space below,

            and    the      roof     of     the    Building       were    necessary,         thoroughly

            investigated and recommended by GMS or RKA.                         The multiple reports

            generated by GMS and RKA demonstrate the seriousness of the damage,

            the challenges that the Co-op faced in making such repairs,                                     and

            the steps it took to ensure that the repairs were being carried

            out.    "So long as the board acts for the purpose of the cooperative,

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                           Page 32 of 34
             Motion No. 002

[* 32]                                                 32 of 34
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

            within the scope of its authority and in good faith,                                courts will

            not    substitute         their     judgment          for     the     board's"      (Matter            of

            Levandusky, supra, 75 NY2d at 538).

                   Plaintiff does not dispute that the Board had the discretion

            to decide how to undertake repairs.                           Instead,       Plaintiff argues

            that on their motion, under Matter of Levandusky, defendants bear

            the burden of establishing, as a matter of law and fact,                                   that in

            undertaking and executing the repairs, the Board acted reasonably.

            The court disagrees with plaintiff's interpretation,                                in that the

            Court of Appeals in the Matter of Levandusky held that,                                   although

            the "reasonableness standard has much in common with the [business

            judgment standard it]             adopt[ed]",         the business judgment standard

            is "preferable" because               ( 1)    rather than requiring the board to

            demonstrate        that     its    decision           was     reasonable,        the     business

            judgment standard requires the shareholder to demonstrate breach

            of    the   board's      fiduciary       duty,       and     (2)     the    business      judgment

            standard does not           require          the    court to        evaluate the merits or

            wisdom of the Board's decision, and instead gives deference to the

            Board's business judgment (Matter of Levandusky, at 539).                                Contrary

            to Plaintiff's arguments, the business judgment standard, not the

            reasonableness         test,      governs           the     Board's        decision,      and      the

            Levandusky       court     reasoned          that    "the     prospect       that   each        board

            decision may be           subjected to             full     judicial       review hampers          the

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                              Page 33 of 34
             Motion No. 002

[* 33]                                                    33 of 34
                                                                                                               INDEX NO. 653335/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

            effectiveness of the board's managing authority" (id. at 540; see

            also 40 W. 67th St. Corp., 100 NY2d at 150)

                    The evidence thus shows that the Board acted within the scope

            of    its       authority,    in    good      faith,      and     for       the       purpose            of      the

            cooperative          when    it    made      the   repairs        in     the        Building.                  This

            evidence is not rebutted by the Plaintiff .

                                                                              .v-~                 fl - } ~
                                                                            20240312181021DJAMESDE1FA39CA1A64035960C8F9A32CCFDA6

                    3/12/2024
                      DATE                                                           DEBRA A. JAMES, J.S.C.

                                                                      ~
             CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                      NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                         GRANTED          □ DENIED          GRANTED IN PART                  □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                       SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN         FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT            □ REFERENCE

             653335/2018 ALFORD, REBECCA vs. 72ND TENANTS CORPORATION                                         Page 34 of 34
             Motion No. 002

[* 34]                                                    34 of 34