Pursuant to CPLR 901, one or more members of a class may sue as representatives on behalf
of all if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are
questions of law or fact common to the class which predominate over any questions affecting
only individual members; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the
claims or defenses of the class; (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class; and (5) a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and
efficient adjudication of the controversy (City of New York v Maul, 14 NY3d 499, 508 [2010]). "These
factors are commonly referred to as the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality,
adequacy of representation and superiority" (id. at 508). This action does not satisfy [*7]the commonality and typicality requirements.
Here, there are two main categories of claims as to the nature of the liability. Each category
involves several properties, different defendant-landlords, disparities in relevant time periods,
and variations in the fraudulent IAI claims. The lack of commonality and typicality will increase
exponentially with the addition of the putative class members. "Typical claims are those that
arise from the same facts and circumstances as the claims of the class members" (Globe Surgical Supply v GEICO Ins.
Co., 59 AD3d 129, 143 [2d Dep 2008]). Here, the representatives are not typical of the
class claims because their injuries, if any, do not derive from the same course of conduct by
defendants (Roberts v Ocean Prime,
LLC, 148 AD3d 525, 525-526 [1st Dept 2017], citing Stecko v RLI Ins. Co., 121 AD3d
542, 543 [1st Dept 2014]).