DOMEN HOLDING CO v. SANDERS (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis L. Nock, J.), entered November 15, 2024, which denied defendant's motion to dismiss the action and strike the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of dismissing the cause of action for punitive damages (fifth cause of action), and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendant failed to establish that the action should be dismissed on the basis that Housing Court, rather than Supreme Court, is the more appropriate forum for the action.  Supreme Court has general jurisdiction over plenary real property actions, including those by a landlord against a tenant (see Katz 737 Corp. v. Cohen, 104 A.D.3d 144, 161, 957 N.Y.S.2d 295 [1st Dept. 2012]).

Defendant also failed to establish that the causes of action for declaratory relief, a money judgment, possession of the premises, and fraud (first through fourth causes of action) should have been dismissed.  The parties dispute whether defendant has the legal right as the decedent's spouse to succeed to the apartment, and the action therefore presents a justiciable controversy warranting declaratory relief (see CPLR 3001;  see Morgenthau v. Erlbaum, 59 N.Y.2d 143, 147, 464 N.Y.S.2d 392, 451 N.E.2d 150 [1983];  Seneca Ins. Co. v. Lincolnshire Mgmt., 269 A.D.2d 274, 275, 703 N.Y.S.2d 127 [1st Dept. 2000]).  The complaint also adequately alleged all the elements of a cause of action for fraud with adequate detail (CPLR 3016[b];  see Kaufman v. Cohen, 307 A.D.2d 113, 120, 760 N.Y.S.2d 157 [1st Dept. 2003]).  Furthermore, contrary to defendant's argument, the documentary evidence presented by defendant is insufficient to conclusively establish a defense to any of the causes of action as a matter of law (CPLR 3211[a][1];  see 150 Broadway N.Y. Assocs., L.P. v. Bodner, 14 A.D.3d 1, 5, 784 N.Y.S.2d 63 [1st Dept. 2004]).

However, the fifth cause of action should have been dismissed, as “a separate cause of action for punitive damages is not legally cognizable” (Jean v. Chinitz, 163 A.D.3d 497, 498, 83 N.Y.S.3d 55 [1st Dept. 2018]).

We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.