the David plaintiffs to move into their houses. No such consumer-oriented conduct is
alleged here.
Illegality and Mistake
The fifth and sixth causes of action allege that defendants, either directly or indirectly,
entered into leases which falsely misrepresented the amount of rent that defendants or the entities
controlled by defendants were legally entitled to collect.
The fifth cause of action alleges that plaintiffs and members of the class are entitled to
recover monetary damages from defendants based upon defendants' illegal, false, or mistaken
provisions in their leases.
As for the sixth cause of action, allegedly, plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class are
entitled to reformation of their leases to provide that their units were and are subject to rent
stabilization, and to represent accurately the amount of rent defendants are legally entitled to
charge plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class.
A complaint can allege both a breach of contract and a violation of RSL (see e.g. Aijaz v Hillside Place, LLC, 8
Misc 3d 73, 75 [App Term, 2d Dept 2005], affd in part, revd in part on other grounds
37 AD3d 501 [2007]). Here, however, the complaint does not identify any lease provisions
that were breached (cf. Nezry v Haven
Ave. Owner LLC, 28 Misc 3d 1226[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51506[U], * 9-10 [Sup Ct,
NY County 2010]).
Class Allegations
In Borden, the Court of Appeals held that "CPLR 901 (b) permits otherwise qualified
plaintiffs to utilize the class action mechanism to recover compensatory overcharges under
[Roberts v Tishman Speyer Props., L.P.], even though [the RSL] does not specifically
authorize class action recovery and imposes treble damages upon a finding of willful violation"
(Borden, 24 NY2d at 389-390).