- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- Ogundiran v. Spira
- Date
- June 3, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03451
Background
Plaintiff Aderibigbe Ogundiran, a residential tenant in Brooklyn, commenced this action pro se against MTGLQ Investors, L.P., a former owner of the property, and others. The complaint asserted causes of action for retaliation under Real Property Law Section 223-b, invasion of privacy, damage to property, nuisance, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, all arising from alleged unlawful acts at the property in August 2019. MTGLQ moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a). Supreme Court, Kings County (Aaron D. Maslow, J.), granted the motion. Plaintiff appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the dismissal, with costs. The Court systematically analyzed each cause of action. The retaliation claim failed because the complaint did not allege that MTGLQ took any retaliatory action of the type contemplated by Real Property Law Section 223-b, or that such action was in response to protected conduct by the plaintiff. To the extent the claim was intended as one for harassment, the Court noted that “New York does not recognize a common-law cause of action alleging ‘harassment.'”
The invasion of privacy claim failed because New York recognizes this tort only under Civil Rights Law Sections 50 and 51, which prohibit use of a living person’s name, portrait, or picture for advertising or trade purposes without consent. No such allegations were made. The remaining claims—property damage, nuisance, and intentional infliction of emotional distress—were barred by the statute of limitations, as the alleged conduct occurred in August 2019 and the action was not commenced until March 2024.
Takeaways
This decision provides a useful survey of common tenant claims and their legal limitations. Real Property Law Section 223-b retaliation claims require specific allegations that the landlord’s conduct was of the type the statute prohibits and was taken in retaliation for protected activity. New York’s narrow recognition of privacy torts is limited to Civil Rights Law provisions covering commercial exploitation of name or likeness. Additionally, tort claims arising from property-related misconduct are subject to ordinary statutes of limitation, and waiting nearly five years to sue will result in dismissal.
Why It Matters
Pro se tenants and tenant advocates should take careful note of the specific pleading requirements for landlord-tenant tort claims. The absence of a common-law harassment cause of action in New York means that tenants must fit their claims within established statutory frameworks. The statute of limitations is equally critical—claims must be brought promptly after the alleged misconduct occurs. This case also illustrates the challenges pro se litigants face in framing legally sufficient causes of action without the guidance of counsel, underscoring the value of early legal consultation in landlord-tenant disputes.