In Zadok v. Lomner, No. 151526/2024, 2025 WL 675168 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Mar. 03, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s false imprisonment claim.
The court summarized, and applied, the law as follows:
In an action for false imprisonment, four elements must be established: (1) the defendant intended to confine the plaintiff, (2) the plaintiff was conscious of the confinement, (3) the plaintiff did not consent to the confinement and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged (Ostrover v City of New York, 192 AD2d 115, 117 [1st Dept 1993]).
Here, plaintiff alleges that defendants purposefully changed the code on an exterior door leading to his unit thereby preventing him from being able to exit his apartment. Plaintiff further alleges that when he asked defendants for help releasing the door they refused, keeping him confined for several hours (id. at 44 — 51). Accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true, plaintiff has sufficiently plead a claim for false imprisonment and it will not be dismissed.
[Internal quotation marks and citations omitted.]
The court did, however, grant defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s housing discrimination claim under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).