Eagle Pedicab, Inc. v. 109 W. 38th LLC

2026 NY Slip Op 30905(U)
CourtNew York Supreme Court, New York County
DecidedMarch 9, 2026
DocketIndex No. 652054/2025
StatusUnpublished
AuthorPhaedra F. Perry-Bond

This text of 2026 NY Slip Op 30905(U) (Eagle Pedicab, Inc. v. 109 W. 38th LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, New York County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Eagle Pedicab, Inc. v. 109 W. 38th LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 30905(U) (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2026).

Opinion

Eagle Pedicab, Inc. v 109 W. 38th LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 30905(U) March 9, 2026 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 652054/2025 Judge: Phaedra F. Perry-Bond Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

file:///LRB-ALB-FS1/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.6520542025.NEW_YORK.001.LBLX038_TO.html[03/19/2026 3:45:56 PM] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2026 11:08 AM INDEX NO. 652054/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2026

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY

PRESENT: HON. PHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND PART 35 Justice ---------------------------X INDEX NO. 652054/2025 EAGLE PEDICAB, INC., MOTION DATE 06/05/2025 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. _ __:0=-:0:. . :.1_ _ - V-

109 WEST 38TH LLC, LEVY SILBERSTEIN, and JOHN DECISION + ORDER ON DOE MOTION Defendants. -------------------X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number {Motion 001} 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS

Upon the foregoing documents, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint

pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(l) and (a)(7) is granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background

On December 21, 2022, Plaintiff leased the premises at 109 West 38 th Street, New York,

New York (the "Premises") from Defendant 109 West 38 th LLC ("West 38 th LLC") to operate a

pedicab rental, sales, and repair business. On December 3, 2024, a fire occurred at the Premises

and the New York City Department of Buildings issued a full vacate order due to unsafe conditions

at the Premises. Allegedly, West 38th LLC did not take any steps to repair the Premises making it

impossible for Plaintiff to occupy it and conduct its business. Plaintiffs property at the Premises

was allegedly removed and sold via Facebook Marketplace without Plaintiffs consent. Plaintiff

now sues Defendants for recission of the Lease due to constructive eviction, conversion, and

breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment.

652054/2025 EAGLE PEDICAB, INC. vs. 109 WEST 38TH LLC ET AL Page 1 of 5 Motion No. 001

[* 1] 1 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2026 11:08 AM INDEX NO. 652054/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2026

Defendants respond with this pre-answer motion to dismiss, arguing that the fire began at

the Premises because numerous lithium-ion batteries being stored by Plaintiff exploded, leading

the FDNY to issue a public statement about the dangers of electronic bikes. Defendants also argue

that notwithstanding the FDNY statement, Plaintiff fails to allege that the fire occurred through no

fault of its own, and therefore fails to allege the Defendants' duty to repair the Premises under the

Lease was triggered. Defendants further argue there can be no claim against Defendant Levy

Silberstein as he was not a party to the Lease and has no contractual privity with Plaintiff. Finally,

Defendants argue the conversion claim fails to allege a demand for its property was ever made and

refused. Plaintiff opposes.

II. Discussion

The motion is granted in part and denied in part. When reviewing a pre-answer motion to

dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court accepts all factual allegations as true, gives claimant

the benefit of all favorable inferences which may be drawn from the pleadings, and determines

only whether the alleged facts fit within any cognizable legal theory (Sassi v Mobile Life Support

Services, Inc., 37 NY3d 236, 239 [2021]). However, conclusory allegations or bare legal

conclusions with no factual specificity are insufficient (Godfrey v Spano, 13 NY3d 358, 373

[2009]). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim will be granted if the factual allegations

do not allow for an enforceable right ofrecovery (Connaughton v Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 29

NY3d 137, 142 [2017]). A motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence is appropriately

granted when the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiffs factual allegations,

conclusively establishing a defense as a matter oflaw (Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. ofNew York,

98 NY2d 314 [2002]).

652054/2025 EAGLE PEDICAB, INC. vs. 109 WEST 38TH LLC ET AL Page 2 of 5 Motion No. 001

[* 2] 2 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2026 11:08 AM INDEX NO. 652054/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2026

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks recission of the lease due to constructive eviction and sues

for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment against Silberstein, those claims are dismissed as

the lease annexed to Plaintiffs Complaint definitively establishes the only parties in contractual

privity are Plaintiff and West 38 th LLC.

Plaintiff is correct that the FDNY press release blaming the fire on lithium-ion batteries at

Plaintiff's store is not documentary evidence (see, e.g. Hill v New York City Health and Hospitals

Corp., 147 AD3d 430,430 [1st Dept 2017]). However, Plaintiffs Complaint is fatally silent as to

the cause of the fire. Because West 38th LLC's duty to restore the Premises is only triggered if the

fire was caused through no fault of Plaintiff, and Plaintiff fails to allege the fire was caused through

some other party's fault, the contract claims must be dismissed. 1 Specifically, the Lease states in

Article 16:

"If a fire or other casualty shall have been caused by any act or omission of Tenant or by any act or omission of any owner, member, shareholder, principal, manager, officer, director, employee, worker, contractor, subcontractor, customer, patron, client, invitee or assignee of Tenant or by any act or omission of any subtenant, licensee or occupant of the Premises then, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Lease, Tenant shall remain obligated to pay all Fixed Rents and Additional Rents payable under this Lease (i.e., the Fixed Rents and Additional Rents shall not be eliminated, abated or reduced for any period) and Landlord shall not be required to repair, replace or restore the Structural Components or any other part of the Building and Tenant shall, at Tenant's expense, promptly repair, replace and restore the Structural Components, the Build-Out, all parts and components of the Premises and Building and Tenant's Equipment."

Plaintiff's failure to allege facts demonstrating that West 38th LLC's duty to repair was

triggered requires dismissal (see, e.g. M & E 73-75 LLC v 57 Fusion LLC, 189 AD3d 1, 6-7 [1st

Dept 2020]). Therefore, the recission and constructive eviction claim is insufficiently pled and are

dismissed.

1 Even in opposition, Plaintiff failed to amplify its pleadings and allege the fire was caused due to no fault of its own.

Plaintiff fails to even address the allegation that the fire was caused by its electronic bike business. 652054/2025 EAGLE PEDICAB, INC. vs. 109 WEST 38TH LLC ET AL Page 3 of5 Motion No. 001

[* 3] 3 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2026 11:08 AM INDEX NO. 652054/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2026

Moreover, because Plaintiff failed to allege it performed all obligations under the Lease

(including not setting the Premises on fire by charging a dangerous number of lithium-ion

batteries), Plaintiff cannot assert a claim for the breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment (see

558 Seventh Ave.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Goshen v. Mutual Life Insurance
774 N.E.2d 1190 (New York Court of Appeals, 2002)
Godfrey v. Spano
920 N.E.2d 328 (New York Court of Appeals, 2009)
Hill v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
2017 NY Slip Op 914 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Connaughton v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
75 N.E.3d 1159 (New York Court of Appeals, 2017)
M&E 73-75, LLC v. 57 Fusion LLC
2020 NY Slip Op 4372 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2026 NY Slip Op 30905(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eagle-pedicab-inc-v-109-w-38th-llc-nysupctnewyork-2026.