PRIORITY MANAGEMENT LLC v. DEUTSCH (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered on or about January 7, 2025, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its breach of contract cause of action and for summary judgment dismissing defendants' affirmative defense and counterclaims for breach of the warranty of habitability and emotional distress, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its breach of contract claim because plaintiff established, through documents and defendants' admissions, the existence of a lease, defendants' breach of the lease, and resulting damages.  Defendants conceded that they entered the lease agreement and that they did not live at the premises or remit any rent during the period claimed by plaintiff.

The court also properly granted summary judgment dismissing defendants' affirmative defense and counterclaim that plaintiff breached the warranty of habitability set forth in Real Property Law § 235–b by failing to address faulty electrical wiring in the apartment building.  Defendants did not live in the apartment during the period for which they claim a breach, and thus are not entitled to compensation (see Genson v. Sixty Sutton Corp., 74 A.D.3d 560, 560, 905 N.Y.S.2d 24 [1st Dept 2010];  see also Adler v. Ogden CAP Props., 126 A.D.3d 544, 545, 2 N.Y.S.3d 902 [1st Dept 2015] ).  In addition, there is no evidence that defendants left their apartment or failed to return due to faulty electrical wiring or any other condition that represented a threat to their safety or otherwise rendered their apartment uninhabitable (see Adler, 126 A.D.3d at 545, 2 N.Y.S.3d 902;  see also Solow v. Wellner, 86 N.Y.2d 582, 588–589, 635 N.Y.S.2d 132, 658 N.E.2d 1005 [1995] ).

Furthermore, the court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim for emotional distress.  Defendants failed to raise any triable issue that plaintiff's conduct in commencing this action amounted to extreme and outrageous conduct, which is necessary to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (see generally Howell v. New York Post Co., 81 N.Y.2d 115, 121, 596 N.Y.S.2d 350, 612 N.E.2d 699 [1993] ).  Nor did defendants raise any triable issue as to whether any harm they experienced was “a direct rather than a consequential” result of plaintiff breaching any duty so as to support a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (Brown v. New York Design Ctr., Inc., 215 A.D.3d 1, 5–9, 185 N.Y.S.3d 97 [1st Dept 2023] ).

We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.