lease term concluded, defendants advised Jenya that only part of her security deposit would be
returned as a result of various deductions that had been made by defendants. Plaintiffs
commenced a class action against defendants seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief on behalf of themselves and all other persons who, within four years prior to the date of the
filing of the amended complaint, rented residential property from defendants, provided
defendants with a security deposit, and were not returned the entire security deposit upon
termination of the lease. Plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that defendants failed to return their security
deposit within the time set forth in the lease, and commingled security deposit moneys with other
funds inasmuch as defendants used the same checking account to return part of Jenya's security
deposit and to reimburse Jenya for "overpaid rent." Supreme Court granted defendants'
pre-answer motion to dismiss the amended complaint. We modify the order by denying the
motion in part and reinstating the amended complaint as asserted by plaintiff Jenya Rubman,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated.
We agree with plaintiffs that the court erred in granting the motion with respect to the class
action allegations. We conclude that, "accept[ing] the facts as alleged in the [amended] complaint
as true, [and] accord[ing] plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference" (Leon v
Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), the amended complaint contains sufficient allegations
to withstand that part of defendants' motion seeking dismissal of the class action allegations
pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). "[A] class action may be maintained in New York only after the